LAWS(BOM)-2009-4-187

RANGNATH TRIMBAK SONAWANE Vs. BABAN GANPAT MHASKE

Decided On April 13, 2009
RANGNATH TRIMBAK SONAWANE Appellant
V/S
BABAN GANPAT MHASKE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

(2.) By the order passed on 5-5-2008, this Court (Coram : Abhay S. Oka, J.) had issued notice to the respondents returnable on 25-7-2008, indicating that an endeavour will be made to decide the appeal at the stage of admission. Record was called for. It has been received.

(3.) This appeal is filed by the claimant, who has filed M.A.C.P. No. 160 of 1995 in the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad. The appellant has alleged that he was in service in a company as a Security Guard and met with an accident on 20-5-1994. He has lodged an application for compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the said Act"). This application is in view of the format provided under section 166 of the said Act. The learned trial Court issued summons to the respondents/opponents, namely; driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle. It is alleged by the claimant that at about 4.30 pm to 5.00 pm on 20-5-1994, he was travelling in a goods truck bearing Registration No. MH-20-B-3110, driven by respondent No. 1 and owned by respondent No. 2. It was insured with respondent No. 3. There were other persons also travelling along with the appellant. According to the appellant it was a marriage party. While travelling from village Pimpalgaon Deo to Borwadi, Taluka and District Aurangabad, this vehicle, according to the claimant, met with an accident within the limits of Fulambri Police Station, on the date and time mentioned by the claimant in the petition. According to the claimant, accident took place due to negligent and rash driving of respondent No. 1. The goods vehicle turned turtle and met with the accident. Claimant and others suffered injuries. Claimant and others were rushed to Government Hospital, Aurangabad. Allegedly, he has suffered injuries. Initially, he was hospitalised for some days. Claimant has sustained injuries and subsequently came to be terminated by his employer.