MUSHTAQ AHMAD SOFI Vs. NOOR HUSSAIN DAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act of 1988") is directed against the award dated 19th of May, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned award") passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar (for brevity "the Tribunal") in a claim Petition titled 'Noor Hussain Dar v. Mushtaq Ahmad Sofi and Ors.', whereby the claim Petition stands allowed and the claimant/ Respondent No.1 herein held entitled to the compensation worked out at Rs.1,90,000.00, inclusive of interim relief, if any, granted, along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim Petition, till final realization of the awarded amount.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, as come to the fore from the perusal of the pleadings on record, are that a claim Petition came to be filed before the learned Tribunal by the claimant/ Respondent No.1 herein, asserting therein that on 24th of January, 2004, while he was going in his Auto Rickshaw (Load Carrier) bearing registration No. JK01G/3421 and when he reached Khona Khan, Dalgate, he was hit by a bus bearing registration No. JKE-2373 driven very rashly and negligently by the Respondent No.2/ Appellant No.2 herein, causing grievous injuries to the claimant, including privation of his eye sight. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and with the support of the relevant documents, the claimant/ Respondent No.1 herein prayed for grant of compensation in his favour to the tune of Rs.19, 28,000.00, along with interest.

(3.) It appears that the Appellants, Respondents 1 and 2 therein, filed the Objections before the Tribunal, wherein it was specifically pleaded that the Respondent No.1/ Appellant No.1 herein, i.e., the owner of the vehicle, was under a bonafide belief that the driver of the vehicle viz. Respondent No.2/ Appellant No.2 herein was holding a valid license and, as such, the owner of the vehicle engaged the said Respondent No.2 as driver of the vehicle. It was also stated that the driver of the vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving license and, by virtue of the said driving license, he was authorized to drive LMV, Medium Goods Vehicle and HMV, however, the license was without having 'Public Service Vehicle' (PSV) endorsement. Subsequently, since the Respondents 1 and 2/ Appellants herein did not turn up before the Tribunal and, as such, they, vide Order dated 21st of December, 2004, were proceeded ex-parte.