LAWS(BOM)-2010-6-137

PRAMILA BHUPAL GAUNS DESAI Vs. SMITA DATTA VELIP

Decided On June 15, 2010
PRAMILA BHUPAL GAUNS DESAI Appellant
V/S
SMITA DATTA VELIP Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment and award dated 5.12.2000 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa at Margao awarding compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/- along with future interest @ Rs.11 % p.a. thereon from the date of the petition until payment in Claim Petition No.205/1994 has been questioned in the present appeal.

(2.) Head on collision between the scooter driven by the husband of the appellant No.1 and father of the co-appellants, and the motorcycle driven by the husband of the respondent No.1 Smita Velip at about 6.30 p.m. on 26.12.1993 on the road proceeding from Balli to Quepem resulted in demise of drivers of both motorcycle and scooter. It is the case of the claimants/ appellants that the deceased scooterist was proceeding from Balli to Quepem on his own side of the road when the husband of the respondent No.1 coming on the motorcycle in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner without putting the lights on, dashed against the scooter driven by the deceased victim. Yet, the appellants submit, the Claims Tribunal on assumption that there was darkness at the material time disbelieved the eyewitness account and proceeded to hold that the accident had taken place on account of the rashness and negligence of both the drivers. Quantum of compensation due to the deceased motorcyclist on the basis of such premise, the appellants submit, was erroneously reduced to half by the learned Claims Tribunal. Learned Advocate S. S. Kakodkar for the appellants, for the purposes of canvassing the appellants' viewpoint, pointed out from the evidence of CW3-Shashikant Dessai that there was clear credible eyewitness account of the accident and there was no reason for the learned Claims Tribunal to have dismissed such eyewitness account, particularly as regards the existence of day light. He further submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal without taking into account the fact that the deceased had settled in the business as PWD Contractor after returning to India following his decade and half stay at Muscat, had erroneously presumed daily income of the deceased as Rs.100/- and completely overlooked the future prospects of the deceased in the business as PWD contractor. This approach, it is submitted, resulted in grant of compensation not commensurate with the loss occurred to the claimants. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment reported in 1996(2)TSE1(SC); Smt. Sarla Dikshit and anr Vs. Balwant Yadav and Ors.

(3.) Interestingly, to the query put forth by this Court regarding the claim made by the deceased motorcyclist the husband of the respondent No.1 Smita Velip, learned Advocate Kakodkar for the appellants responded with the papers evincing the record of the compromise between the respondent No.1 Smita Velip herein and the respondent No.3-United India Insurance Company Ltd in Claim Petition No.58/1994 for Rs.2,25,000/- on 25.03.1997. It appears that the appellant No.1 Pramila Dessai herein did resist the Claim Petition No.58/1994 with the written statement dated 04.04.1994 disputing the allegation that her husband drove scooter without light in fast speed and in rash and negligent manner at the material time and specifically contending that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased motorcyclist.