LAWS(MPH)-2012-11-173

KAPIL PATEL Vs. DINESH

Decided On November 06, 2012
Kapil Patel Appellant
V/S
DINESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 9.12.2009 passed by the Tenth Additional M.A.C.T., Ujjain, in the Claim Case No. 22 of 2009 whereby the claim petition filed by appellant was allowed and compensation of Rs. 7,97,493 was awarded, present appeal has been filed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the appellant filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal alleging that on 20.4.2008 the appellant was going as pillion rider on the motor bike bearing registration No. MP 45-MB 3195 which was owned by respondent No. 3 and being driven by the respondent No. 5, deceased Rahul. It was alleged that at that time a truck bearing registration No. MP 09-KB 1950 which was owned by respondent No. 2 and driven by respondent No. 1 dashed the motor bike on which the appellant was pillion rider. It was alleged that because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 and also motor bike which was being driven by deceased Rahul accident took place in which Rahul passed away on the spot, It was alleged that claim petition filed by the appellant be allowed and compensation be awarded. Claim petition was contested by the respondent No. 4 on various grounds including on the ground that since the accident took place from the back side because of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck which was being driven by respondent No. 1, therefore, respondent No. 4 cannot be held liable for compensation. It was prayed that claim petition be dismissed against respondent No. 2. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, learned Tribunal allowed the claim application and awarded compensation of Rs. 7,97,493, the break-up of which is as under:

(3.) So far as liability is concerned, the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, therefore, the amount awarded shall be recoverable from the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and exonerated respondent Nos. 3 and 4 against which present appeal has been filed.