PARVEEN Vs. JAIN CONSTRUCTION CO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed by the claimant against the Judgment and Award dt. 05.04.2006 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Camp Kushalgarh District Banswara in MACT Case No. 21 of 2003 whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and has awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000/ - plus interest @ 6% percent as compensation in favour of the claimant and against non -claimants No. 1 to 3. Brief facts of this case, are that on 22.07.2002, at about 6.00 P.M. a Dumper bearing RJ -03G/1031 which was being driven by its driver Ladji (respondent non -claimant No. 3) rashly and negligently at a high speed from the side of Umedpura, Banswara hit Motorcycle bearing No. RJ -03 -2M/3403, which was driven by Bhura Ram and Praveen his son of 8 years old was sitting thereon. It was coming from Anandpuri side in right direction. As a result of which, Bhura Ram (aged 28 years) sustained head injury and Praveen (aged 8 years) sustained fracture of his right leg and other multiple injuries on boy. Both the injured persons were brought to the hospital at Anandpuri in serious condition for treatment. In was alleged that M/s. Jain Construction Company was the owner of Dumper and it was insured with the respondent non -claimant No. 2 -Insurance Company. It was stated that the injured Bhura Ram was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 2000/ - per month and Praveen was studying in sixth class at the time of accident. A report of the accident was lodged at P.S. Anandpuri against non -claimant No. 3 Ladji (driver of the Dumper) for the offences under Secs. 279, 337, 338 IPC. Bhura Ram and Praveen both filed separate claim petitions, which were respectively registered as MACT Cases No. 20/2003 and MACT Case No. 21/2003. The claim petition filed on behalf of Praveen was presented by his father being natural guardian as the appellant was minor at that time.

(2.) AFTER service of notices, non -claimant No. 1 (owner of the Dumper) and non -claimant No. 3 (Driver of the Dumper) filed a joint reply to the claim petition denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and further stated that the compensation claimed by the appellant is exorbitant. It was stated that as the dumper was insured, therefore, if any liability of compensation arises, the insurance company shall be responsible for it.

(3.) DURING trial, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following necessary issues were framed: -