PRAHLAD RAI Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 12.9.1994 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (hereinafter for short 'the Tribunal') by which the learned Tribunal held the appellant contributory negligent to the extent of 50 per cent and awarded compensation in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs. 1,19,000 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award impugned, the appellant-claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement.

(2.) Brief facts which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are thus: On 18.5.1992 at about 5.30 p.m. the appellant was proceeding from Triveni Chauraya to Bigod on Spark moped No. RRE 5046 at a moderate speed. The said moped was driven by him fully under control. When he was plying over Triveni River bridge, at that time, a truck No. MP 14-C 1397 was also proceeding ahead of him, which came to be stopped suddenly by its driver respondent No. 2. Without any signal or indication, the driver of the said truck started reversing the truck rashly and negligently, as a result of which, the appellant who was about 10 to 20 ft. behind the truck on a stationary moped, was hit by the said truck while it was being reversed. Due to this accident the moped and the appellant's leg were crushed under the rear wheel of the truck which resulted in amputation of the left leg of the appellant from above knee. The appellant also sustained injury on metatarsus bone and toe of right leg. It is the specific case of the claimant that the respondent No. 2, Dhanna Lal, suddenly reversed the truck without ensuring the safety of a person on road and without the help of a cleaner and as such, he was rash and negligent in reversing the truck, which resulted in the said accident. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the said truck and at the relevant time, the truck in question was validly insured with respondent No. 3. A claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming compensation under various heads for a sum of Rs. 5,83,300.

(3.) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement and denied the fact of negligence. However, the accident was not disputed. Respondent No. 3 also filed written statement wherein it was admitted that at the relevant time of the accident, the said truck was validly insured with respondent No. 3. The Tribunal framed as many as 7 issues and tried the case.