GEORGE RODRIGUES Vs. SATHISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 9/9/2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 13/10/2012 at about 4.10 p.m., the deceased Reford Ashwin Rodrigues was riding his Bajaj Pulsar bearing registration No.KA-19 ED-7434 from side and when he reached near Gundyadka Bhajana Mandira, Puthige Village, goods lorry bearing registration No.KA-30-1561 which came from the opposite direction and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized. However, he succumbed to his injuries on 14/10/2012. Thereupon, the claimants filed petition under Sec. 166 of the Act in which inter alia it was pleaded that the deceased, at the time of accident, was aged 25 years and was working as Office Assistant at Mechanical Engineering Services EST, Dubai, UAE. It is further submitted that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.60,000.00 and accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,35,00,000.00 was claimed as compensation. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 namely the driver and owner of the vehicle in question remained absent and they were proceeded exparte. Respondent No.3 filed written statement in which it was admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with it. The age, income and avocation of the deceased was denied and it was denied that the lorry was being driven in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined himself as PW-1 and filed as many as 32 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P32. The legal officer of respondent No.3 was examined as RW-1 and 3 documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 were tendered in evidence. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. It was further held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.8,93,000.00 as compensation.