SHAIKH ABDUL RAZAK Vs. TULSAPPA MALIYAPPA KARUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 30th November, 2004, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao in claim petition No. 95/ 1997.

(2.) THE claim petition was filed by the appellant to claim compensation, due to the injury sustained by the appellant on account of an accident which he sustained as he was a pillion rider of a motorcycle driven by his son while proceeding from Karwar towards Vasco on 19th May, 1996. On account of the said motor vehicle accident, the appellant suffered two compound fractures on his right leg. The said accident occurred at Karmalghat in Canacona where the vehicle bearing registration No. KA -30/3527 coming from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed on the motorcycle in which the 10/7/2014 appellant was the pillion rider. Accordingly, the claim petition was filed claiming a total compensation of Rs 1,94,800/ - from the respondents. By judgment and award dated 30th November, 2004, the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri Netravalkar, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 has strongly disputed the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. He pointed out on the basis of the evidence on record that the appellant has failed to establish by any cogent evidence that respondent No. 1 was responsible for the accident and/or that the respondent No. 1 was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The learned Counsel has taken me through the sketch and pointed out that the truck was on the extreme left hand side of the road and that the truck had stopped at a distance of 1 metre from the point of impact/which shows that respondent No. 1 was not rash and negligent in driving the truck. The learned Counsel has further submitted that the rider of the motorcycle wherein the appellant was the pillion rider, was solely responsible for the accident and, as such, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled for any compensation.