NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SHARANBASAPPA M PATRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the Appellant insurance company has taken an exception to the judgment and award passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mapusa. The first and second Respondents are the original claimants in a claim petition filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The claim for compensation was filed on account of death of the son of the first and second respondents in a motor accident.

(2.) The case made out by the first and second respondents is that their son Vijaykumar was a student of engineering College. On 12th May 2005 in the evening, the deceased was proceeding from his engineering College to Ponda by his "Freedom" motor cycle. When he reached near Vijay saw mill gate at Bhoma at about 5.30 pm, a Tata Tipper Truck driven by the third respondent and owned by the fourth respondent came from the opposite direction in a very fast speed and gave a dash to the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. The allegation in the claim petition is that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said truck by the third respondent. The first and second respondents claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 12,05,000/- with interest.

(3.) The third respondent filed a written statement opposing the claim petition. He contended that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the deceased. He contended that when the truck reached near Vijay saw Mill Gate, he had slowed down the speed of the truck. At that time he noticed that the deceased was driving his motorcycle in a fast speed at the centre of the road. The case made out in the written statement is that the motor cyclist was driving his motorcycle so fast that the said respondent could not turn the truck to its left side. The third respondent contended that he made an attempt to save the deceased by blowing horn and he stopped the truck to reduce the impact. He further stated that the deceased had not at all noticed the truck as he was in engrossed in looking sidewards. The appellant (the insurer of the truck) also filed a written statement. The appellant did not dispute that on the date of accident, the truck was validly insured with it. It was stated in the written statement that the third respondent was driving the truck without a valid driving licence and therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay compensation.