HEERALAL Vs. RAMGOVIND SHARMA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 has been preferred by claimant/appellant against an Award dated 27th July 2005 in Claim Case No.76/2003 by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena (M.P.) dismissing thereby entire claim of the appellant/injured for award of compensation under Section 166 of the Act.

(2.) The facts of the case are that on 22nd April 2001, the appellant-injured was coming in a Bus bearing registration No. MP06/ B-0591 from Morena to Jora. At around 10 p.m., when the bus reached at M.S. Road, by the side of the house of Laxmininarayan and the appellant was likely to get down, at that juncture, it is alleged that the driver of the bus without caring and observing signal from the side of the conductor, moved the bus rashly, as consequence of which, the appellant fell down on the road and received serious injuries on his left leg. On report of the injured, the FIR was lodged against the driver of the bus involving in accident upon which a Crime was registered. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the driver before the criminal court. On medical examination, a grave injury on the leg of injured was detected. At the time of accident, the appellant was working as IV class employee in Judicial Court at Jora and was getting monthly salary of Rs.4,000/-. It is stated in the claim petition that due to injuries received by the appellant, he got permanent disablement which results in functional disability and future prospects in service. The appellant, in these circumstances, prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,57,000/- (Rs. Two Lac Fifty Seven Thousand Only) in all heads for the injuries against the respondents. The learned tribunal after recording the evidence of the parties and by considering the evidence on record concluded that the petitioner/injured was negligent in alighting from running bus and no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus was found to be proved. Consequently, the learned Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition, hence, this appeal.

(3.) The contention of the appellant/injured is that the the findings recorded under the Award are erroneous and without consideration of the facts and evidence on the record. It is submitted that the learned tribunal erred in recording negligence against the appellant and not against the driver, who was negligent in driving the bus rashly resulting in accident. On these submissions, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal, the findings of the tribunal that the claimant could not prove the negligence on the part of the driver may be set aside and by considering the evidence on record, an appropriate award of compensation may be passed in his favour.