BRIJ LAL Vs. MANGAL CHAND MAHESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa, vide an order dated 21st of December, 1981, awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6 per annum in favour of the claimant Mangal Chand Maheshwari against Brij Lal, respondent No. 7. Two appeals have been filed against this award, one by Mangal Chand Maheshwari (F.A.O. No. 53 of 1982) for enhancement of compensation and the other by Brijlal (F.A.O. No. 44 of 1982) for absolving him from the payment of compensation. Both the appeals having arisen from the same award of the Tribunal are being disposed of together.

(2.) THE case of the claimant Mangal Chand Maheshwari is that on 19th of November, 1977, he was returning to his house driving his motorcycle. When he reached at the crossing near his residence a jeep bearing registration No. RSL 6508, rashly and negligently driven, dashed against his motorcycle causing serious injuries to him. The lower part of his right leg was crushed under the wheel of the jeep due to which the leg was fractured. He was removed to the clinic of Dr. B.D. Goyal (PW2) where he was provided with first aid and then he was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Rohtak, For the injuries suffered by him Mangal Chand Maheshwari claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- He filed the claim petition against seven respondents. The owner of the jeep Brij Lal was impleaded as respondent No. 7. The jeep is registered in the names of Iqbal Singh Respondent No. 5 and Joginder Singh respondent No. 6. This jeep had been hired from Brij Lal respondent by the Primary Land Development Bank, Sirsa, respondent No, 3. It is alleged that at the time of accident Dalip Singh respondent No. 1, Land Valuation Officer of the said Bank, Hoshiar Singh respondent No. 2. Cashier of the Bank, and Prem Singh respondent No 4 employed as driver by the Bank were travelling in the jeep.

(3.) DALIP Singh respondent in his written statement pleaded that he and Prem Singh respondent No. 4. were in the jeep on behalf of the bank. The presence of Hoshiar Singh respondent No. 2 was denied. It was alleged that Brij Lal respondent No. 7 owner of the jeep was performing the duties of the driver. On the point of accident it was stated that the claimant was driving the motorcycle rashly in a state of intoxication and having lost control of the motorcycle had dashed it against the jeep.