JAI DAYAL Vs. ABDUL HAFIZ AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of the impugned order dated 10.2.2006 passed by the MACT, Khetri, District, Jhunjhunu, in claim case No. 67/2003, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant has been partly allowed granting compensation of Rs. 1,30,955/ - in favour of the claimant.

(2.) THE brief facts as emerging on the face of record are that a claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal with the averments that on 22.10.2002 in the morning at about 6 O' Clock the claimant was going in his Truck bearing No. R.J. -14G -2846 after loading luggage from Jaipur to Sagli on Ahmedabad Road. When he reached near village Guha and in front of Saiganga Hotel then a vehicle Truck bearing No. M.P. -09KA -2937 which was being driven by non -petitioner No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, came in front after wrongly overtaking a vehicle hit the truck of the claimant from driver side due to which the claimant and Khalasi sustained injuries. The report of the said incident was lodged by the Khalasi Ram Niwas at Police Station, Rahuri, upon which a FIR No. 213/2002 was registered against the non -petitioner No. 1 and after investigation a challan for offences under sections 279,337, 338 & 427 and under the provisions of the M.V. Act was submitted before the concerned court. It was averred that non -petitioner No. 1 was driver of the Truck bearing No. M.P. -09KA -2937, who drove the said truck rashly and negligently and caused the accident. The non -petitioner No. 2 is the owner of the Truck bearing No. M.P. -09KA -2937 and non -petitioner No. 3 is the Insurance Company with whom the truck was insured. Therefore, the claimant prayed to grant compensation to him from all the non -petitioners because they are responsible for the injuries caused to the claimant in the said accident.

(3.) AFTER hearing the arguments advanced by the parties, the learned Tribunal framed as many as 5 issues including the issue of relief. In support of his claim, the claimant produced in oral evidence himself as A.D. 1 and A.D. 2 Bhagchand and A.D. 3 G.R. Meshram. The non -petitioner produced witness Mahavir Prasad Bohra in their defence. The Tribunal after considering the submissions of the counsel and perusing the material available on record passed the impugned award granting compensation of Rs. 1,30,955/ - in favour of the claimant. Hence this appeal.