ABEDABI MOHAMMED MUSTAQ Vs. FEMIDA BEGUM SHEIKH ISRAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very peculiar question of law raised in this appeal is; if a petition filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable as the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself, whether the subsequent petition under section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is maintainable?

(2.) For answering this question of law, one has to consider the facts of this appeal, which is filed under section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 challenging the judgment and order dated 23.07.2015 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Yavatmal thereby rejecting the claim petition of the appellant herein, filed under section 22 of the said Act.

(3.) Brief facts of the appeal are to the effect that, appellant No.1 is the mother, appellant No.2 is the widow and appellant Nos.3 to 7 are the children of deceased Mohd. Khalil, who was working as a Driver on the Truck bearing MH29 6337 and belonging to one Sheikh Israil. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 are the legal heirs of Sheikh Israil. The said truck was validly insured with respondent No.7.