SAMINA Vs. SALEEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award, dated 18.9.1996, rendered by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 226 of 1992, which has been filed by the original claimants for the enhancement of compensation. The appellants herein are the original claimants i.e. the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Hafizuddin; whereas respondent no.1 Shaikh Saleem Sk. Mehboob is the driver of offending vehicle Matador, bearing registration No. MH20/ A3638 and respondent no. 2, namely Raosaheb Kadam is the owner of the said Matador. Respondent no.3New India Insurance Company is the insurance

(2.) The facts, which gave rise to the present appeal, can be briefly stated that on 11.5.1992 at about 6.00 p.m., respondent no.4 Ravan was riding the motor cycle, being registration No.MAA6425 and the deceased Hafizuddin accompanied with him as a pillion rider to his field to take the measurement of the well, as the deceased Hafizuddin was allegedly serving as a Junior Engineer with the Panchayat Samiti. After taking the measurement and while returning to Aurangabad, they reached near Deogiri Dhaba on PhulambriKhultabad road and the offending vehicle i.e. Matador bearing registration No. MH20/ 3636 coming from opposite direction came on its wrong side and hit the said motor cycle, and thereby both the rider i.e. Respondent no.4 and the pillion rider the deceased Hafizuddin sustained injuries. Accordingly, both were admitted into the Government Medical College Hospital, Aurangabad. Thereafter deceased Hafizuddin was shifted to Pune Hospital under the care of Dr. Bafna and further he was shifted to Rubi Hall Clinic, where he expired on 5.6.1992. According to the appellants, the deceased Hafizuddin was drawing salary of Rs.2,200/per month, and therefore, they claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/from the respondents.

(3.) However, respondent nos. 1 and 2 remained absent, although served, and therefore, the petition proceeded against them ex parte; whereas respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 filed the written statement and opposed the claim of the appellants. Respondent no. 3 denied that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Matador and stated that there was negligence on the part of the motor cyclist. However, the insurance policies of respondent no.3 in respect of the offending vehicle Matador and respondent no.5 in respect of the motor cycle were valid and subsisting.