DUMAINA FERNANDES Vs. RAZIK B PEREIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who are the claimants in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short, hereinafter, referred to as "the said Act") have preferred this appeal, taking exception to the Judgment and Award dated 12th October, 2004 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao.

(2.) One Sebastiao Fernandes died following the injuries sustained in a motor accident which took place on 22nd March, 1999 at about 5.20 p.m. The deceased was proceeding from Tilamol to Sanvordem by his scooter. When he reached Sonfatar, a bus gave a dash to him. The bus came from the rear side of the scooter and as a result of the dash given by the bus, the deceased was knocked down. The deceased sustained serious injuries and while he was being taken to the hospital, he died. The first respondent was driving the said bus at the time of the accident. The second respondent is the owner of the bus and the third respondent is the insurer of the bus.

(3.) In the claim petition, the appellants claimed that at the time of the death, the age of the deceased was 52 years. It is alleged that the deceased was working on board of the ship of M/s. Wallem Shipmanagement Limited, Hong Kong and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.45,000/-. It is stated that at the time of the death of the deceased, the age of the first appellant, the widow of the deceased, was 46 years. The second appellant who is the daughter of the deceased was a student at the relevant time. The claim petition was contested by the third respondent by contending that the bus was being driven at a normal speed and in fact, the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased himself. It was contended that the deceased was not possessing a valid driving licence. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the first respondent. Out of the claim amount of Rs.25,00,000/-, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 1,95,000/-. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was nothing on record to show that on the date of death, the deceased was in regular employment. The Tribunal has taken a sum of Rs.15,000/- as notional yearly income of the deceased on the basis of the second schedule to the said Act. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 11 and granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- each on account of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate to the deceased. That is why the present appeal has been preferred by the claimants, seeking further compensation of Rs.23,05,000/-.