KASHMIR D GUDINHO Vs. SURESH KULKARNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, arises from the judgment and award dated June 19th, 1996, by the learned District Judge/motor Vehicles Claims tribunal, Karwar, in M. V. C. No. 344 of 1987, dismissing the claimants' claim petition for compensation.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that on 27-2-1987, at about 8-45 p. m. , a motor vehicle accident did take place on National high Way No. 17 at Baitkol. The case of the claimants is that deceased, son of the claimants was travelling as pillion rider on a motor cycle driven by respondent 1, in the claim petition. When the motor cycle reached Baitkol, it skidded and both of them fell down. The deceased, that is Ignatius Gudinho, suffered serious head injuries resulting in his death on 24-3-1987, despite of best medical treatment. According to the claimants' case, the accident did take place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent 1, coupled with the presence of some salt on the road which led to the skidding of the vehicle. The claimants claim that the deceased I. K. Gudinho was earning a sum of Rs. 1,250/-per month and had good prospects of promotion and increment in his salary by working as an electrician in Ballarpur Industry limited, Binga. The petitioners further asserted that I. K. Gudinho (deceased) during his lifetime used to spend his entire earning on the family. So, the petitioners claim the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,15,000/ -. According to the claimants' case, petitioners were entitled to compensation for the loss of pecuniary benefits and consortium caused to them as well as for the loss of expectation of life caused by untimely death of i. K. Gudinho and the mental agony suffered by the applicants from the act of respondents. The claimants further alleged that they incurred lot of expenditure in the medical treatment of the deceased from the date of accident till he expired which expenditure amounted to about Rs. 15,000/- and thus, the claimants made a claim for compensation aggregating Rs. 2,15,000/ -.

(3.) ON notice being issued, the respondents 1 and 2 denied the claim made by the claimants, that is the appellants as well as the other allegations. They put up the story that the vehicle being driven at that time by the deceased himself and not by respondent 1. It was further alleged that at that time, few trucks were transporting salt from Baitkol harbour to Ballarpur industry, Binga and in that process, they spilled salt on the road which became a nuisance to the vehicle drivers and on account of that spilled salt on the road, the motor cycle skidded and the deceased and the respondent 1, fell down and sustained injuries. The respondents 1 and 2 alleged that accident did take place on account of driving of the vehicle by the deceased only and as such, the Police has not registered any case against respondent 1. The respondents 1 and 2 alleged that the vehicle has been insured one with respondent 3. The respondents 1 and 2 further denied the claim put up by the petitioners and alleged that the claim for compensation was not maintainable and it was exorbitant and excessive.