- (1.)This Order shall also govern the disposal of MA No. 345/2008 as in both the appeals accident is one and the same arising out of award dated 7.12.2003 passed by MACT, Ratlam whereby claim case filed by the appellants were dismissed.
(2.)Short facts of the case are that claimant/Ramesh and Mukesh filed claim case before learned Tribunal alleging that on 12.9.2006 Mukesh who was driving the tractor bearing registration No. MP/43/AA/278 in which appellant/Ramesh was sitting as companion. It was alleged that the said tractor met with an accident with Bus bearing registration No. M.A-11/A/2432 which was driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. It was alleged that in the said accident both the appellants sustained grievous injuries. It was alleged that since accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondents No. 1, therefore, claim case be allowed and compensation be awarded. The claim case was contested by the respondent No. 3 on various grounds. It was alleged that claim case be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal dismissed the claim case holding that it was Ramesh who was driving the offending tractor attached with trolley on whose fault accident took place, therefore, no compensation can be awarded to appellant Ramesh and Mukesh against which the present appeal has been filed.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award passed by learned Tribunal is incorrect, illegal and deserves to be set-side. It is submitted that accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. It is submitted that criminal case was registered against the respondent No. 1. It is submitted that no evidence was adduced by the respondent No. 3 on the basis of which it can be said that accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of tractor. It is submitted that ample evidence is on record to demonstrate that at the relevant time tractor was being driven by appellant/Mukesh. It is submitted that appeal be allowed and impugned award be set-aside and compensation be awarded.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that after due appreciation of evidence learned Tribunal has found that accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of tractor. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed.

(3.)After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there is ample evidence on record which goes to show that tractor was being driven by Mukesh and Ramesh was companion on the tractor and not driving the tractor. Apart from this, criminal case was registered against the respondent No. 1, that aspect of the case has not been taken into consideration by the learned tribunal. Learned Tribunal also not assessed the amount of compensation which could have been awarded in favour of appellant, while it is settled principle of law that in case claim petition is dismissed by the learned Tribunal, then, the amount of compensation for which claimant is entitled should be assessed, so that in case appellate Court allows the appeal, then, compensation can be awarded. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that findings recorded by learned Tribunal cannot be allowed to sustain. In view of this, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the impugned award passed by learned Tribunal, whereby claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed, is set-aside. Case is remanded to learned Tribunal to re-decide the claim petition filed by appellant after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, if any. Parties are directed to remain present before learned Tribunal on 19/10/2010.
With the aforsaid observations, appeal stands disposed of.