MARIA SANTANA VAZ Vs. SEBASTIAO D COSTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and the learned Counsel appearing for the first Respondent. The second and third Respondents are served with a notice but none appears for them. The challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment and award made by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao. A Claim Petition was filed by the Appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. By the impugned judgment and award, the Claim Petition has been dismissed.

(2.) WITH a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it will be necessary to briefly state the facts of the case. The deceased is Bartholemeu Vaz. The Claimants/Appellants are the widow and children of the deceased. The first Respondent is alleged to be the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. The second and third Respondents are the employers of the first Respondent. The first Respondent was employed in the Postal Department.

(3.) IT must be stated that even the Claim Petition under Section 140 of the said Act was contested by the Respondents. The parties adduced the evidence. The Claim Petition under Section 140 of the said Act was dismissed by the Tribunal and an Appeal was preferred before this Court which was allowed and the compensation of Rs.25,000/- was granted under Section 140 of the said Act.