BALKRISHNA DNYANOBA BANKAR Vs. KISAN SAWALRAM PADWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter was heard by me earlier. Time was given to the parties for settlement. The counsel for the appellant states that settlement is not possible. Advocate Mr. Vidyarthi for New India assurance Co. Ltd. is present. Nobody is present for other respondents.

(2.) Appellant is the owner of the vehicle. The Extra Joint District Judge, Pune has saddled this owner with compensation of rs. 2,58,400 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. The manner in which the accident occurred is very peculiar and that in itself supports the contention of the appellant owner that in any case he cannot be held liable for this accident.

(3.) The appellant owned a truck bearing no. MHF 7872. Deceased was the son of claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The deceased was in employment of the appellant as driver. He was driving the said truck on 17. 5. 1992. As per the case of the claimants, the truck hit a stone on the road in the darkness of night as a result of which joint rod was dislocated from the thread and socket of springpata near back side left wheel of the truck and front gundipata was dislocated and the truck tilted towards the right side and fell flat on the right side. The driver, i. e. , the deceased sustained fracture to his 5th to 9th ribs on the right side and also received injuries on the back. He was removed to the hospital but he succumbed to the injuries and died. The crucial question before Tribunal was, whether in the circumstances any liability can be fixed upon the owner of the vehicle and even though the Claims Tribunal has come to the conclusion in favour of the claimants, that finding is perverse and is required to be set aside. The counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of Karnataka high Court in Y. R. Shanbhag v. Mohammed gouse, 1991 ACJ 699 (Karnataka) , where it is held that if the driver sustained injury due to his own driving, then owner cannot be held liable.