NILIMA MITHEL TAR Vs. EKNATH MUKUND NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has taken an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 10th September, 2003, passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Mapusa, by which a claim petition filed by her under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") has been dismissed.

(2.) The accident occurred on 16th March, 1996 at 13.30 hours. The appellant is the widow of one Mithel Chandrakant Tar who is the victim of the accident. The deceased was proceeding on his Kinetic scooter. The accident occurred at Gokulwadi, Sankhali. A bus owned by the second respondent and driven by the first respondent as well as a truck owned by the fourth respondent, gave a dash to the Kinetic scooter of the deceased. As a result of the impact, the deceased fell on the road and came under the truck owned by the fourth respondent. The allegation is that the bus of the second respondent and the truck owned by the fourth respondent were being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The appellant made a claim for compensation in the sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The fifth respondent is the insurer of the offending truck and the third respondent was the driver of the offending truck. Sixth and seventh respondents are the parents of the deceased. It must be noted here that the sixth and seventh respondents filed a written statement. In the written statement, it was contended that the deceased was maintaining them by making payment of a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month. By a counter-claim, the said respondents made a claim of compensation in the sum of Rs. 8,75,000/-.

(3.) The second respondent filed written statement and denied the allegations made in the claim petition. The allegations made as regards negligence on the part of the driver of the bus were denied on account of want of knowledge. The first, third and fourth respondents did not file any written statement. The fifth respondent filed written statement admitting that the offending truck was insured with it on the date of the accident. The finding of the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal is that the appellant failed to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, as well as the driver of the truck. Therefore, the Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the claim petition of the appellant. As regards the claim made by the sixth and seventh respondents to receive 50% of the compensation, the learned Presiding Officer has observed that the question of considering the said claim does not arise.