SANAULLA Vs. SANJIVA ANNA SHETTY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 12th July, 1973 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Greater Bombay in claim application No. 182 of 1969 dismissing the Applicant's application for compensation arising from a fatal accident to his son Shakil Ahmed Sanaulla.

(2.) The claim petition was filed by the Appellant Sanaulla son of Sadatali, a resident of District Basti in Uttar Pradesh. It is not in dispute that his son Shakil Ahmed Sanaulla, while he was riding on a motor cycle and was proceeding along Signal Hill Road, Mazgaon, Bombay, met with an instantaneous death in the accident between his motor cycle and the lorry which was at the material time, that is on 4.11969, being driven by Respondent No 1 and which was owned by Respondent No. 2 Kwik Transport Syndicate. According to the Appellant when the deceased Shakil Ahmed Sanaulla was proceeding on his motor cycle along Signal Hill Road, Mazgaon on the correct side of the road, close to the footpath, the first Respondent Sanjiva Anna Shetty drove the lorry No. BNR 6407 belonging to the second Respondent at excessive speed, without keeping proper look out, in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the lorry dashed against the motor cycle from behind and knocked down the deceased and the lorry ran over him causing instantaneous death. According to the Appellant the accident was caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the driver). The Appellant alleged in his petition that the deceased at the time of the accident was aged 25 years and was in robust health and was very much attached to the family. At the time of his death he was assisting in the family business that is M/s. Chaudhari Metal Industries and M/s. Khan Mohamed Shafi Mohamed and Bros and he was intending to set up his own separate business. The Appellant alleged that the deceased would have continued to live and support the dependents for the rest of his life. He was expected to live at least till the age of 65. Due to his premature and sudden death, the dependents viz. his parents, his widow and two children have lost their share which would otherwise have come to the deceased from the family properties. A loss has also been caused to the estate of the deceased. The Appellant estimated the compensation payable on account of the death of the deceased at Rs. 75,0007/-. The Appellant specifically stated in his application that the application had been filed for himself and for the benefit of the other dependents as described in paragraph 18 of the application.

(3.) The Respondents by their written statement denied that the motor lorry was being driven at an excessive speed in a rash and negligent manner without keeping proper lookout. They alleged that it was the motor cycle of the deceased which dashed against the lorry. It was denied that the deceased died as a result of the negligence of the Respondent No. 1. According to them on the day in question the motor lorry was proceeding towards Reay Road. At the junction of Signal Hill Road, the deceased motor cyclist with 'L' sign came from a small lane on left side and in total disregard of vehicular traffic on the road tried to proceed further as a result of which the said motor cycle dashed against the left front wheel and the cyclist fell down and received injuries. Without prejudice to these averments the Respondents stated that in any event the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence.