COMMANDANT GENERAL Vs. SAIYAD MOHAMMAD KHALID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On behalf of the appellant/ non-applicant No. 2-the registered owner of the offending vehicle this appeal is preferred under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for setting aside the award dated 26-11-1998 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in M. C. C. No. 37/98 whereby claim of the respondent No. 1 regarding injuries sustained by him in the alleged vehicular accident has been awarded for the sum of Rs. 83,118/- along with the interest @ 12% p. a. by saddling jointly and several liability to indemnify such sum against the appellant and respondent No. 2, the driver of the offending vehicle.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on 20-8-1996 at about 11.00 O'clock in the morning the respondent No.l/ claimant was going to his office on his Scooter bearing registration No. MP-04-N-1774, on the way the respondent No.2 while driving the Jeep bearing registration No. CPZ-4557 under the employment of the appellant in rash and negligent manner dashed his Scooter, resultantly he fell down and sustained various injuries on his person. He was taken to local hospital from where after providing the preliminary treatment he was shifted to Koh-A-Fija hospital where he remained admitted initially for the period between 20-8-1996 to 3-9-1996 and subsequently between 10-9-1996 to 15-9-1996 as indoor patient. As per further averments due to such injuries he sustained near about 78% permanent disability in his hand and leg. As per further averments on the date of the incident the offending vehicle was registered in the name of the appellant while the same was driven under the employment of the appellant by respondent No. 2. With respect of such incident a criminal offence was also registered against the respondent No. 2 at the concerning police station. With these averments stating the income of the appellant Rs. 3,865/- p. m. The claim for the compensation of the aforesaid injuries and permanent disability was preferred for the sum of Rs. 3,30,000/-.

(3.) The respondent No. 2 was proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal while in reply of the appellant by denying the averments of the claim petition it is stated that on the date of the incident the respondent No. 2 was not posted as driver under the employment of the appellant on the alleged Jeep. The criminal case was registered against the respondent No. 2 on the false pretext. In fact the accident was not the cause and consequence of the rash and negligent driving of aforesaid jeep by the respondent No. 2. In further averments it is stated that the aforesaid jeep was already transferred prior to the date of the incident in accordance with the prescribed procedure to the Gramin Yantriki Seva Vibhag where the respondent No. 2 was not working as driver. In such premises the liability of the impugned claim could not be saddled against the appellant and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.