HANIF Vs. RAMESH BHARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This misc. appeal under Sec. 173 of the MV Act, has been directed against the impugned judgment and award dtd. 8/7/2004 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Addl. District and Sessions Judge) (Fast Track), Beawar (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim case No.384/2004, by which the claim petition filed by the claimant- appellant has been rejected on the ground that the injured was working under the employment of respondent No.2 i.e. registered owner of jeep No. RJ-01-P-2196, hence, he is not entitled to get compensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, but liberty was given to the claimant-appellant to file application under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

(2.) Facts, in brief, of the case are that the injured was Khalasi/cleaner on vehicle No. RJ-01-P-2196. On 15/3/1999, he sustained injuries while repairing the radiator, when driver started the vehicle suddenly, in a rash and negligent manner and due to which jeep started and claimant-appellant sustained injuries in his leg. For the above act, FIR No.116/99 was registered with Police Station Beawar City for the offences punishable under Sec. 279 and 337 IPC and after investigation charge-sheet submitted against the driver of the jeep for the above-mentioned offences.

(3.) The injured-claimant submitted the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.2,20,000.00 against the driver/owner and Insurance Company of the vehicle before the Tribunal. The Tribunal issued notices to the respondents. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 refused to receive the summons and respondent No.3 filed its reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition and submitted that excess compensation has been claimed.