RAJENDRA Vs. VIKAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Appellant had filed claim petition for getting compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 bearing Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 28/2008 before the Ex- Officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur. The said petition was partly allowed with proportionate cost. It was held that the original respondents No. 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation to the extent of 20 % and the respondents No. 3 and 4 were held to pay 80 % of the total amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 3,13,000/-. The present Appeal has been filed by the original claimant for enhancement.

(2.) The factual matrix leading to the Appeal are that the Appellant/Original Claimant was 30 year old tailor, carrying on his business under the name and style ' Raj Tailors' and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. He was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No. MH 24/F 3235 on 22.06.2007 from Lamjana to Killari. Respondent No. 3 was driving the said jeep in a rash and negligent manner. When it reached near Mogarga Pati, a Tempo bearing No. MH 24/A-2831 driven by respondent No. 1 came in opposition direction in a rash and negligent manner. Both the drivers had lost control and collided with each other, as result of which the claimant sustained grievous injury. He was initially taken to Rural Hospital, Killari and then shifted to another hospital at Latur. Though he has taken treatment, yet, his injuries have turned into permanent physical disability for him and he cannot do any kind of work now. Therefore, compensation was claimed from respondents No. 1 to 4. Respondent No. 4 was the Insurance Company of Tempo.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 filed written statement, so also, the other respondents also filed their separate written statements. All of them have denied the averments in respect of the negligence. Respondent No. 1 contended that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of respondent No. 3, whereas respondent No. 3 contended that the accident took place due to the negligence of respondent No.1. The Insurance Company of Tata Tempo had taken statutory defence also.