A P BRAGANZA Vs. SAGAR RAJARAM CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Appeal challenges the judgment and award passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims: 2: Tribunal, at Mapusa, in Claim Petition No. 4/2002.

(2.) The Appellant filed a claim petition on the ground that on 13.11.2001 at about 06.30 hours he was proceeding on the one-way road towards Panaji by his Ford Escort car bearing registration No. GA-01-R-0592 from Mapusa to Panaji. Near the petrol pump at Porvorim, a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No. GA-02-F-9360 driven by the Respondent No. 1 came suddenly from the opposite direction on the 'No Entry' and in a rash and negligent manner and gave a dash to the claimant's car. On account of the said accident, the car got damaged and as such the Appellant had to incur substantial expenses to the tune of Rs. 61,465/-. It is further his case that he received a sum of Rs. 48,206/-from his insurance company and filed the above petition to claim the balance amount of damages to the tune of Rs. 13,259/-along with interest. It is further his case that he was not able to use the said vehicle for about two weeks and on account of mental torture and inconvenience he had qualified damages to the tune of Rs. 21,741/-. It is further his case that the vehicle was driven by the Respondent No. 1 and the same was owned by the Respondent No. 2 and it was duly insured with the Respondent No. 3. The claim petition was accordingly filed to recover the said amount from the Respondents. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not file any written statement. But however Respondent No. 3 filed the written statement and contended that as the claim was settled by the insurer of the Appellant namely New India Assurance Company Limited in full and final settlement, the Appellant was not entitled to maintain the petition. It is further their case that the said insurance company was a necessary party to the petition and the petition was itself bad for nonjoinder of necessary party. It is further their case that insurance policy issued is subject to "knock for knock agreement" between the insurance company and the Appellant having recovered the damages to his vehicle from his insurance company, no further claim could lie against the said Respondent No. 3. It is further their case that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the Appellant.

(3.) The learned Presiding Officer after framing the issues and recording of evidence by impugned judgment and award dated 15th May, 2004 dismissed the claim petition filed by the Appellant. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal.