PREM RATAN MAL Vs. JOURNAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Appellant is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. ORG 2893, a tanker, by which kerosene purchased by one Gajadhar Agarwal was being transported. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of another vehicle bearing registration No. ORG 8001 and in the said vehicle also kerosene belonging to said Gajadhar Agarwal was being transported. Both the vehicles left Berhampur on 30th of April, 1982. During the next morning when both the vehicles were moving one after the other, the vehicle of Respondent No. 1 following the vehicle of the Appellant, the vehicle of Respondent No. 1 struck against the vehicle which was going in the front as a result of which the front vehicle belonging to the Appellant capsized. This accident occurred, according to the Appellant, on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to Respondent No. 1. He, therefore, filed an application claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 96,816.10 which according to him is towards the damage caused to his vehicle. In the claim application also a claim had been made for damage to the kerosene oil which was being carried in the vehicle, but the said dispute no longer remains the subject -matter of this appeal. This application of the Appellant was registered as M.J.C. No. 94 of 1982.

(2.) THE said Gajadhar Agarwal who had purchased the kerosene and was getting it transported through the two vehicles also filed an application claiming compensation for the loss of kerosene in question which was numbered as M.J.C. No. 98 of 1982. Both these applications were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was the sole negligence of the driver of the vehicle belonging to Journal Singh (Respondent No. 1 in the present appeal) for which the accident took place and when a moving vehicle dashed from behind with such load, it would be natural to go out of way and overturn at any moment and, therefore, the entire liability should be fixed on Journal Singh's driver and he should pay the compensation for the rash and negligent act of his driver. Having held the driver of the vehicle of Respondent No. 1 responsible for the loss in question, the Tribunal further allowed the claim of Gajadhar Agarwal, claimant in MJC No. 98 of 1982 and directed the insurance company to pay the said amount. But so far as the Appellant claimant is concerned, the Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that there was no satisfactory evidence for the claim in question. Therefore, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 though had entered appearance through counsel, yet at the hearing of this appeal, the learned Counsel was not present. Mr. Roy, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2, however, was present.