LAWS(BOM)-2011-2-167

SHARIFA ALIAS SAFURA BI Vs. SHAIKH HANIF

Decided On February 04, 2011
SHARIFA ALIAS SAFURA BISHAIKH Appellant
V/S
SHAIKH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal challenges the Judgment and Award passed in Claim Petition No.3 of 2004 dated 10-8-2004.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the case of the appellants is that they filed a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act, for short) claiming a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of the death of YusufShaikhin a motor vehicle accident. It is their case that on 14-10-1997 at about 6.00 a.m., the deceased Yusuf was driving a rickshaw bearing No.GDZ-1241 belonging to the respondent No.1 to go to Benaulim from Margao and the rickshaw overturned which resulted in the death of the said Yusuf. It is further their case that the respondent No.1 failed to keep the rickshaw in a proper condition and its brakes were not functioning properly and as such filed the claim petition against the respondent No.1 who is otherwise his brother and owner of the rickshaw. The respondent No.1 filed his written statement and admitted that he was a registered owner of the rickshaw and further stated that he had given it to his brother who died, and he had made all the arrangements for a mechanic to repair the said rickshaw from time to time. According to the said respondent, the rickshaw was insured and it was the duty of the respondent No.2 to make the payment. The respondent No.2 filed the written statement and it was their contention that they are not liable to pay any compensation as the case does not come within the provision of the Act, and an application under section 163-A of the Act was not maintainable.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri E. Afonso, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submitted that at the most, the appellants will be entitled for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. He further submitted that the question of claiming for compensation when a party is not a third party does not arise under the provision of Section 163-A of the Act. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the claim petition was not maintainable.