DUKHA DEV SARKAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment of the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (M. D.), Sambalpur (hereinafter described as the 'Tribunal' ) refusing to grant any compensation to the appellant, also described as the claimant, is the subject-matter of assail in this appeal.

(2.) CLAIMANT lodged a claim Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short, the 'Act') claiming compensation of Rs. 60,000/- from the respondent, on the ground that on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. ORP 4459, belonging to the respondent, he sustained injuries and was therefore, entitled to be compensated. According to the claimant, he was driving his motor cycle bearing registration No ORP 3394 very slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road. Suddenly the offending vehicle which was being driven at a very high speed in the most rash and negligent manner dashed against the appellant's vehicle as a result of which he was thrown out of his vehicle and sustained serious injuries. He was hospitalised for a long period for treatment. The respondent filed objecting stating that the accident did not occur in the manner as alleged by the claimant. It was urged that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the claimant himself and therefore, question of respondent being liable to pay any compensation did not arise".

(3.) LEARNED counsel for claimant-appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has not analysed the evidence of PW 2 in its proper perspective. In fact, no reference has been made to his evidence, which would have shown that the offending vehicle was really responsible for the accident. Alternatively, it is submitted that the question whether the offending vehicle had contributed to the accident or not' has been considared. Learned counsel for respondent however, submits that in view of the categorical conclusions of learned Magistrate in the Criminal proceeding, there is no scope-for taking a view that there was any contributory negligence by the respondent's vehicle.