GIRDHARILAL Vs. DINESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed the claim for Rs. 5,16,000.00 against the respondents in respect of an accident that occurred on 21 -11 -1992 while the appellant himself was driving the Vehicle No. GJ8/T/886 and was going from Dhorimanna to Sanchore, which stuck against a Coal Tar drum, as a result of which, the appellant suffered several grievous injuries. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barmer vide its order dated 14-7-1995 dismissed the claim of the appellant on the ground that it was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the appellant himself, which resulted in the accident, as a result of which, he sustained the alleged injuries. Hence, the learned Tribunal did not find the claim of the appellant sustainable.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal framed certain is-sues but the opposite party did not lead any evidence and there was nothing on record to suggest that the appellant was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. However, a perusal of the statement made by the appellant before the learned Tribunal shows that on account of the dazzle light of the bus coming from the opposite side, his visibility was affected but however, he did not stop his vehicle. The appellant should not have done in order to availed any accident. He drove the vehicle and dashed against the coal tar drum. Thus, from the statement of the appellant himself, it is proved that it was the rash and negligent driving of the appellant himself which has ' resulted in the accident and thereby he sustained the alleged injuries. Hence, in my opinion the learned Tribunal has not committed an error in dismissing the claim of the appellant.

(3.) Alternatively, the learned counsel has submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have directed the appellant to file an application under the Workmens Compensation Act or ought to have returned the application for presenting the same before that authority. In my opinion, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error. It was the statutory right conferred by S. 11OAA of the Motor Vehicles Act and it was for the appellant to have chosen the appropriate forum. The direction of the learned Tribunal was not at all required. Learned counsel has referred to New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari, AIR 1995 All 1 and Smt. Neelabai Vs. Shamrao Tatba Pawar, AIR 1995 Bombay 55. These rulings are not at all relevant to the facts of the present case.