NAMDEO KRISHNA CHOUGULE Vs. MAVJI PURBIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aforesaid First Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Award dated 19th August, 1987 passed by Member of Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, of Greater Bombay in Application No.1817 of 1985. In this matter few facts which are necessary for disposal of this Appeal are as follows:-

(2.) IT was specific case of the Appellants-claimants that at the time of accident the aforesaid Rickshaw owned by Respondent was being driven rashly and negligently by a Rickshaw Driver Narayan Shiva Solanki. The appellants also relied on First Information and certificate from R.T.O. which is at Exhibit 21 to support their contention that the Respondent no.1 was the owner of the autorickshaw. As against this Respondent-owner of autorickshaw admitted that he was the owner of the said autorickshaw but denied that the deceased met with an accident due to the collision of the said Autorickshaw and according to him during the said night he or his driver was not plying the Autorickshaw. Respondent no.2 Insurance Company filed an application for discharge stating in it that they have not insured that said autorickshaw at the relevant time. The trial court after allowing both the sides to lead the evidence dismissed the said application against the Insurance Company as well as against the Respondent no.1.

(3.) MR .Murthy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that judgment and Award passed by the Trial court is liable to be set aside as the Trial Court has not applied its mind to the evidence led by the Appellants, more particularly to show that Respondent no.1 was the owner of the Autorickshaw.