DIVISIONAL MANAGER Vs. SHAKERA IQUBAL MULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) has been filed against the award dated 03.07.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by which the claimants have been awarded a sum of Rs.13,10,700/-. MFA Cross Objection has been filed against the impugned award dated 03.07.2013 seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. Since common questions of law and fact arise for consideration in this appeal and cross objection, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal and the cross objection briefly stated are that on 08.01.2012, deceased Iqubal was traveling as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-09/BN-5193 on Sangao-Mangur road near Kasba Sangao village, the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA-23/M-6918 who was driving the said car in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle in which the deceased was traveling. In the aforesaid accident, the deceased who was aged about 55 years at the time of accident sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries in the hospital.

(3.) The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on account of the death of the deceased. It was pleaded that the deceased was Master of Arts Graduate from Shivaji University and was employed as Marketing Officer in Poly Organic India Company. It was pleaded that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.24,000/-. On service of notice, respondent No.1 did not enter appearance and was placed ex parte. Respondent No.2 namely, Insurance Company filed the written statement in which the averments made in the claim petition were denied. It was pleaded that the deceased did not die on account of rash and negligent driving of car by its driver. A piece of contributory negligence was pleaded in the written statement. It was also stated that the claim for compensation is exorbitant and respondent No.1 has violated the conditions of the policy and driver did not have valid driving licence.