NALINI RAMESH SATARKAR Vs. SHIVAPPA SHIDAPPA HALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and award dated 31 st December, 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in claim petition No.244/1994 dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant claiming compensation of Rs.2 Lacs on account of injuries sustained by her in an accident.

(2.) According to the claimant, on 19th July, 1994, at about 6.30 a.m. at Farmagudi, Ponda, the claimant along with her daughter and husband were standing and loading the luggage in a tempo, which was on the extreme left of the road as one proceeds from Ponda to Panaji. Respondent no.l came from opposite direction on the motorcycle in a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came towards the right side of the road and gave dash to the claimant, as a result of which, the claimant fell on ground and sustained grievous injuries. The vehicle driven by respondent no.l was insured with respondent no.2. The appellant/ claimant filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2 Lacs against the respondents.

(3.) Respondent no.l contested the claim petition. According to him, he was proceeding along with one Kashinath Ramgaunda from Taleigaon to his native place at Bijapur. At about 6.30 a.m., he reached near S.D.P.O.'s office atFarmagudi. He noticed that one pickup was standing on the left side of the road facing towards Panaji side. Respondent no. 1 was proceeding at a moderate speed from left side of the road. When he reached near the pickup, he saw a girl along with 3 baskets standing on the right side of the road as one proceeds from Ponda to Panaji. The claimant, who had already put one basket in the pickup was in a hurry to put the other three baskets which the claimant had kept on the right hand side as one proceeds from Ponda to Panaji. Suddenly, the claimant tried to cross the road, as a result of which the claimant came and dashed the right side of respondent no.l and fell on the ground. Thus, according to respondent no.l, the accident had occurred solely on the ground of negligence of the claimant. Respondent no.2 also denied that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent dri ving of respondent no.l.