JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)By consent, heard finally at the stage of admission.
(2.)In view of the limited challenge raised in the appeal, it is not necessary to discuss the facts in detail. The appellant - original respondent No.4 has preferred this appeal, challenging the judgment and order dated 6th March, 2012 passed by the MACT, Parbhani, in M.A.C.P. No. 4 of 2011, on the grounds set out in detail in the memo of appeal. The award is challenged, mainly for the reason, the Tribunal has apportioned the liability imposed on two vehicles involved in the accident in the ratio of 60:40 and made the appellant liable to pay compensation to the extent of 40%.
(3.)Mr. Kanade, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the reasons and findings recorded by the Tribunal with contention that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the driver of the auto- rickshaw which was insured with the appellant, in any manner responsible for causing the accident and resultant death of the deceased. He submits that, as per the case pleaded by the claimant, the accident was occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the water tanker bearing Registration No. MH- 15/G-7770. It is submitted that the claimant has approached with the case that the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of water tanker owned by respondent No.7 and insured with respondent No.8. The circumstantial evidence proves that the accident was caused due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of water tanker. He contended that the respondent No.1 i.e. wife of deceased has admitted in her cross- examination that the accident was occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the water tanker. It is submitted that there is no iota of evidence to establish that the driver of auto-rickshaw was negligent in driving the vehicle and in any manner contributed in causing accident and consequent death of the deceased. He further submitted that the reasons and findings recorded by the Tribunal are totally unjust, improper and unsustainable in law, and urged to set aside the judgment to the extent of making the appellant liable to pay compensation.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.