TARACHAND HARI PADVI Vs. ANIL BIJASING VASAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 04.11.2003 made by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahada, dismissing appellant's Claim Petition for compensation.

(3.) Mr.Brahme, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence on record indicates that the MSRTC bus bearing Registration No.MH-12-8-8774 was involved in the accident, in which, appellant suffered injuries. He points out that evidence on record suggests that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of the MSRTC bus. He submits that even criminal prosecution has been launched against driver of the ST bus and this, by itself, is sufficient to establish that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the MSRTC bus. Mr.Brahme submits that the evidence on record needs to be appreciated on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and the evidence on record was more than sufficient to hold that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ST bus. Mr.Brahme submits that minor contradictions here and there have been amplified by the Tribunal in order to deny compensation to the appellant. He submits that upon evaluation of the evidence in its entirety, it is apparent that the appellant had sustained injuries in the accident which arose on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ST bus and, therefore, Respondent-MSRTC was bound to compensate the appellant for the injuries so sustained by the appellant.