BANI SINGH Vs. KAMLA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal is directed against the award dated 17.11.1993 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, in Claim Case No. 242/1989.

(2.) BRIEF facts which can be noticed is that on 29.8.1989, Ratanlal Sharma, who was employed with the present appellant and was driving the truck bearing No. DIL 3736 and when he was driving the said vehicle, on account of technical fault the truck overturned and the deceased Ratanlal came under the truck and died on the spot. It is stated that the truck which the deceased was driving, was technically not proper and the owner was directed to repair the same repeatedly, but the present appellant did not take any heed and directed the deceased to take the vehicle for delivery of the goods.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant has contended that the impugned award itself is illegal as the same has been decided without hearing the appellant and there was no notice to the appellant for appearance and, if any notice was issued, it was sent on wrong address and, therefore, the award passed behind his back is unjustified and illegal. He further contended that the appellant was nowhere connected with the said truck as vide an agreement dated 5.10.1988 he had sold the disputed truck (which met with an accident) and the entire sale consideration of Rs. 2,85,500/ -, out of which Rs. 71,093/ - was received and possession was handed over to one Des Raj son of Dayal Das and balance was to be paid by Des Raj to Bank. Since the appellant was not even remotely connected with the truck at the time of accident, therefore, the claim passed by the Tribunal against the appellant is itself illegal and deserves reversal. He further contended that the appellant came to know about the impugned order when execution proceedings commenced and, therefore, the appeal was filed subsequent to that. On merits also he contended that the claim passed by the Tribunal is highly excessive and unreasonable and proper facts have not been looked into by the Tribunal. He also contended that the income itself adopted was not proper and higher as no evidence was led. He further contended that the multiplier is allowed higher and interest is even at the rate of 15% which is highly excessive.