Manak Mohta, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the claimant (injured) against the judgment and award dt. 19.05.2007 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer (in short 'the Tribunal ') in Civil Misc. No. 39/2000 whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition in favour of the claimant -appellant and against the non claimants and they have jointly and severally been held liable to pay total compensation of Rs. 30,700/ - with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 14.03.2000.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of the appeal are that on 30.06.1999 claimant -Babu Lal was travelling in roadways bus and while he was sitting on the roof of bus bearing regn. No. RJ -14P/ 2328 at the advise of Sambhoo Singh (non -claimant No. 2 -conductor of bus), a little latter near the outskirts of Undkha on national highway No. 15 due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver -Keshar Singh (non -claimant No. 1), he fell down from the roof and sustained grievous and simple injuries and became unconscious. A report of the accident was lodged at P.S. Sadar Barmer and the police after investigation filed charge -sheet against the driver -Keshar Singh (non -claimant No. 1). It was stated in the claim petition that at the time of accident he was 18 years old and was earning Rs. 5000/ - per month by doing labour in agriculture and horticulture and due to the injuries, he suffered a huge loss. A total sum of Rs. 3,02,000/ - was claimed as compensation under various heads. It was also stated that the bus was being driven by Keshar Singh and Sambhoo Singh (non -claimant No. 2) was the conductor of the bus. The bus was being operated by him for Rajasthan Roadways. The non -claimants No. 3 and 4 i.e. the Roadways was the owner of bus at the time of accident, thus, it was urged that they all were responsible for the payment of compensation. After issuance of notices, the non -claimant/respondents 1, 3 and 4 contested the claim petition and filed their respective replies wherein the averments stated in the claim petition were denied and it was stated that the claimant met with accident because of his own negligence, as such, no case is made out for payment of compensation, therefore, it was prayed that the claim petition be dismissed.
(3.) ON the basis of pleadings of parties, the learned Tribunal framed the relevant issues.;