YESHODA PARWAR ALIAS YESHODA Vs. SHANKAR PUNDALIK GIRAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20th August, 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao ( in short "the Tribunal").

(2.) On 24th July, 1995, the Appellant was travelling as a passenger in a bus of Kadamba Transport Corporation ( Respondent No.5 herein), from Canacona to Karwar. She was sitting on the driver's side, two seats behind the driver's seat. The bus after taking a halt between Painguinim and Mashem, had gone ahead about 100 metres when a truck came from the opposite direction. According to the Appellant, the truck was being driven at a fast speed on the wrong side and gave a dash to the bus. In the collision between the bus and the truck, the Appellant was injured and suffered fractures of tibia and febula of the upper left leg. She was admitted to a government hospital at Margao soon after the accident and was diScharged on 9th August, 1995. She, thereafter, filed a Claim Petition against the driver and owner of the truck who are Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and joined the Insurance Company of the truck as Respondent No.3. The driver of the bus in which the Appellant was travelling as also its owner Kadamba Transport Corporation were joined as Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear and were proceeded ex-parte. The Respondent No.3 was represented by a lawyer and Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 also were represented by another lawyer.

(3.) The Appellant examined herself and also produced on record the panchanama as also the hurt certificate issued by the Directorate of Health Services, Government of Goa, Margao, which shows fracture of the left leg suffered by the Appellant. It appears that the Tribunal referred the Appellant to the Margao hospital (a Government hospital) again for evaluation during the course of trial. The senior orthopedic surgeon of the Government hospital, after examining the Appellant issued a disability certificate which was taken on record and marked as Exhibit 24. Though the Respondent No.3 appeared through an Advocate, he did not cross the Appellant and Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 briefly cross examined the Appellant and did not dispute the correctness of the medical certificate. Their cross examination was limited to the question of negligence of the driver of the bus. The Appellant also examined a pancha witness to prove the panchanama and the sketch which were marked as Exhibits 29 and 30 respectively.