RADHAKRISHNA Vs. DWARKA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged the award dated 18.8.2008 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, whereby the learned Judge has granted a compensation of Rs. 1,88,088/ - to the respondent -claimants for the death of their son Ashok Kumar. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.11.2005 around 4:30 PM when Ashok Kumar was riding a scooter, bearing registration No. RJ14 -33M -4911, suddenly a motorcycle, bearing registration No. RJ30 -M -1434, being driven rashly and negligently, came and hit the scooter. Consequently, Ashok Kumar suffered grievous injuries. Subsequently he expired. His parents filed a claim petition against the appellant, against the driver, against M/s. Siddharth Polyzink P. Ltd. and against the Insurance Company. During the pendency of the claim petition, by order dated 12.8.2008, respondent No. 3 M/s. Siddharth Polyzink P. Ltd. and the Insurance Company were deleted from the array of respondents and the claim petition was continued only against the driver and the present appellant.

(2.) IN order to prove their case, the claimant -respondents examined two witnesses and submitted fourteen documents. The driver Nehnuram examined himself as a witness and submitted four documents. However, despite the service of notice upon the present appellant, he did not appear before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, proceedings were carried ex -parte against him. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted a compensation as aforementioned. Hence this appeal before this Court.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Amarnath Pareek, the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that according to the Motor Vehicles Act, the registered owner is liable for the payment of compensation. In the present case, the claimants have already been paid the amount under the ESI Act, as the deceased was working under respondent No. 3 M/s. Siddharth Polyzink P. Ltd., therefore, the Company as well as the Insurance Company were exonerated. Since the appellant happens to be the registered owner, therefore, he has rightly been held to be liable for payment of the compensation amount. Moreover, his liability is both, severally and jointly with liability of Nehnuram, who claims to be de facto owner of the offending vehicle. Secondly, since the notices were issued to the appellant, since he chose not to appear before the Tribunal, he cannot plead that principles of natural justice have been violated by the learned Tribunal.