MOHD ISMAIL MIR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal impugns an order passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Kargil, in short MACT , on 31.10.2002 whereunder while disposing of the appellantâ„¢s claim petition against respondent, the Presiding Officer awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/ - with 12% interest in his favour and not the amount claimed.

(2.) IT appears that claiming to have been injured in a vehicular accident caused by rash driving of respondent No.3 while coming from Munje towards Kargil on motor cycle and hit by vehicle driven by aforesaid respondent resulting in grievous injuries to him and his consequent hospitalization, the claimant through a petition before the MACT, sought a total compensation of Rs.4.70 lacs from respondents. In their reply the respondents pleaded that the accident in fact was caused by rash driving of petitioner himself who was riding a motor bike and collided with the vehicle driven by respondent No.3. They have also maintained that at the worst the accident could be a result of contributory negligence of both the petitioner as well as respondent No.3. Vide order dated 25.08.2001, the Tribunal framed issues as follows: 1. Whether accident involving injuries to the petitioner occurred due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle? ¦OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved affirmatively, what compensation petitioner is entitled to? ¦OPP. Issue No. 1 pertaining to alleged negligence of respondent No.3 while driving the offending vehicle, and issue No.2 to the quantum of compensation payable; and after parties adduced their respective evidence decided the claim as aforesaid.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved by reduction of his claim as done under impugned order the appellant assails the same on the ground that the Tribunal while considering the matter did not appreciate the petitionerâ„¢s evidence on record and failed to give appropriate reasons for its conclusions based on a finding of the Military Court; on which the reliance as placed by MACT is totally erroneous in law. During course of arguments the appellantâ„¢s counsel has reiterated the contents of the appeal while the respondent counsel is not available to be heard.