DUNGAR SINGH Vs. NARESH KUMAR PATIDAR & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant, while challenging the validity of the judgment dated 18.10.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kushalgarh (for short 'the Tribunal' hereinafter), whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition preferred by the appellant and directed the appellant to refund the amount of 'no fault liability compensation' within a period of two months.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal, while alleging that on 22.9.1994 at about 11.00 A.M., he was going to village Rakho to Bagidora in Bus No. RRJ-19, at that time a Tractor Trolley No. RJ-03-R0223 came from opposite direction and collided with the bus, on account of that, he fell down from the bus and suffered injuries. The claim petition preferred by the appellant was contested by the respondent-Insurance Company as well as owner of the bus. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed as many as four issues and after taking into consideration the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, the Tribunal decided the Issue Nos. I and 3 against the claimant and held that the appellant sustained injuries on account of his own negligence as he was sitting beside the driver on the gate of the bus and when the tractor-trolley came from the opposite direction, the body of the appellant lying outside the frame of the bus came into the contract of the tractor-trolley and on account of that, the appellant fell down from the bus and received injuries. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has held that the appellant is not entitled to get any compensation for the injuries sustained by him on account of his own negligence.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that though the appellant was sitting beside the driver-on the gate of the bus but he sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor trolley by its driver, therefore, the learned Tribunal was wrong in holding that the injuries sustained by the appellant was on account of his own negligence. The learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in directing to refund the amount of 'no fault liability within a period of two months, failing which the appellant was liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It has also been argued that no such direction can be issued by the learned Tribunal under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.