CHAMPA BAI Vs. DILIP RATHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants/appellants have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

(2.) Facts of the case, in short, are as under:

(3.) The respondent No. 1, though served, did not filed written statement and defendant No. 2 remained ex-parte. The Insurance Company contested the claim by raising usual objections like fitness certificate, violation of terms and conditions, validity of driving license etc. Learned MACT framed 5 issues for adjudication. The claimants examined Champa Bai as PW1 and Kodriya as PW2. After appreciating the evidence, learned Court has held that the respondent No. 1 was negligent while driving the bus and caused the death of deceased Hakku, hence, owner and driver have been held responsible for payment of compensation.