Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 303 (RAJ)

U. O. I. v. Bhagwan Das

2012-02-06

NISHA GUPTA

body2012
GUPTA, J.—This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 15.12.1998 passed in MAC No. 58/1997 by which award of Rs. 11,089/- has been made to the respondent. 2. The short facts of the case are that two separate claims were filed by the present respondent and Purushottam. The contention in the said claim petitions are that Bhagwan Das and Purushottam were coming from Gangapur City on 1.7.1996 at about 12.30 pm. Purushottam @ Pappu was driving the motor cycle and the present respondent the pillion rider. Near Village Karmoda, at about 12.00 p.m. A vehicle Gypsy No. DL-5C-2678, which was driven by Harphool Singh, met with the accident. The learned Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that both the drivers were negligent and due to their negligence, accident occurred. 3. The contention of the present appellants is that Purushottam @ Pappu was not having any driving license and he was also negligent in driving the vehicle. The present respondent was a pillion rider and he was having full knowledge that Purushottam @ Pappu was unqualified driver having no driving license, even then he agreed to become pillion rider. Thus, he was also equally negligence and hence claim petition should have been dismissed by the learned Tribunal. He has further stated that other petition, which was filed in respect of the same accident bearing Claim Case No. 23/97, has been dismissed and hence petition of the present respondent should also have been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that it is an award of a scanty amount and hence this appeal should not have been filed. 5. The learned Tribunal has specifically considered the facts of the case and it has been specifically observed that due to negligence of both the drivers, accident occurred but the present respondent was not negligent. He was only a pillion rider and he has nothing to contribute in the accident. It has not been proved that Bhagwan Das- present respondent was having knowledge that Purushottam @ Pappu was not having any driving license. 6. Hence, looking at the above, there is no scope to interfere with the impugned award and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.