PRAKASH MANNALAL Vs. ASHOK MANNALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the award dated 10.09.2004 passed by Additional MACT Sendhwa, in Claim Case No.70/2003 whereby claim petition on filed by the appellant for compensation on account of injuries sustained by the appellant was dismissed, present appeal has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that appellant filed claim petition before the learned tribunal alleging that appellant is a young man of 40 years. It was alleged that appellant was working as driver of a truck bearing registration No.MP/09-KA/2599 which was owned by the respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3, on monthly Salary of Rs.4,000/-. It was alleged that on 6.06.2002 appellant was going in the said truck along with the other driver, respondent No.1, the said truck was carrying grass mawn (hay) from Indore to Sendhwa. It was alleged that near village Khurampura, when the appellant was tying the rope at the relevant time all of sadden, respondent No.1 drove the truck rashly and negligently with the result rope broke up and the appellant fell down, with the result appellant sustained grievous injuries. Appellant was hospitalized, the appellant sustained permanent disability. It was alleged that since the offending vehicle was insured, therefore, appellant is entitled for payment of compensation. It was prayed that claim petition be allowed and appropriate compensation be awarded. Claim petition was contested by respondents No. 1 and 2. However, it was not disputed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 that the accident took placed in which appellant sustained injuries. It was alleged that since the offending vehicle insured therefore, respondent No.3 is liable for payment of compensation. Respondent no.3 filed written statement wherein it was denied that the accident took place. It was also alleged that since the respondent No. 1 was not possessing valid driving licence, therefore, respondent No.3 be exonerated. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that it is true that the appellant sustained permanent disability. Since negligence of respondent No.1 not proved, therefore, appellant is not entitled for any compensation, hence claim petition was dismissed hence present appeal has been filed.

(3.) IN the matter of Gayatribai and another Vs. Ahmadji and ors [2000 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 5] Division Bench of this Court has held that words "caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle" mentioned in Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Not limited to the vehicles which are in motion, Even the stationary vehicle, vehicles under repair are included, extended meaning has be given to the v words because of social object behind the provision.