RINKU JAISING JADHAV Vs. JAGDISH JAISING JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by original claimants, challenging the order below Exh. 5, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 903 of 2016, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhule (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') on 14.12.2017, whereby, the application filed by the present appellants for getting No Fault Liability compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came to be rejected.

(2.) The present appellants/original claimants have come with the case that they are the legal representatives of one Jaising Babu Jadhav. Said Jaisingh was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing No. MH-18-AV-2156 driven by one Shantaram Popat Rathod. They were proceeding towards village Petle, Tq. Chalisgon, Dist. Dhule. On 18.9.2016, around 9.00 a.m., when the aforesaid motorcycle reached at Shivajinagar Phata on Sakri Nandurbar Road, respondent No. 1, who was driving Ape Rickshaw No. MH-18-AJ-7064 came from behind the motorcycle very rashly and negligently and gave forceful dash to the motorcycle. As a result of which, both occupants of the motorcycle fell down and sustained injuries. They were taken to a hospital. However, Jaisingh was declared dead. It is stated that the said accident took place due to negligence on the part of respondent No.1. Respondent No. 2 is the owner of Ape Rickshaw and the said Ape Rickshaw was insured with respondent No. 3 on the date of the accident. Applicants are claiming compensation of Rs. 40,00,000/- from all the respondents jointly and severally. They had filed application Exh. 5 under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) Pursuant to the summons all the respondents appeared and filed their Written Statement. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their joint Written Statement after the decision of the application Exh. 5. The fact of accident has been admitted by them, It is also admitted that respondent No. 1 was driving the said Ape Rickshaw on 18.9.2016 at the relevant time. Allegations in respect of rashness and negligence against respondent No. 1 have been denied and it is stated that he was carefully driving his vehicle, however the motorcycle driver was rash and negligent and was driving his vehicle from the middle of the road. It was stated that they were not wearing helmet. It has been admitted that respondent No. 1 has been prosecuted by police for the said accident. It is stated that since respondent No. 1 was not responsible for the accident, they are not liable to pay compensation. They have also contended that respondent No. 1 was having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle on the date of accident, so also the vehicle Ape Rickshaw was insured with respondent No. 3.