MAYA S. NAIK Vs. KAVLEKAR GAS SERVICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Gaurish Agni for the Appellants, Ms. Barbara Andrade for Respondent No.1 (owner of the vehicle), and Mr. James Lopes for Respondent No.3 (Insurance Company).

(2.) The challenge in this petition is to the Judgment and Award dtd. 23/11/2011 by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) after determining the compensation of 10,24,805/-, declined to award the Rs. same to the Appellants-Claimants on the ground that the AppellantsClaimants failed to establish any rashness or negligence on the part of Respondent No.3 (driver) of the vehicle involved in the accident.

(3.) Mr. Agni, learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that based on the evidence on record, it was quite apparent that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the Swaraj Mazda Tempo bearing No. GA-01-Z-0117, which not only resulted in the accident but also the instant death of Sunil Naik. He submitted that the panchanama has been misconstrued by the MACT and the inferences drawn therefrom are not legally sustainable. He submits that in this case even though the driver was duly served, he did not bother to file any written statement denying either his involvement in the accident or even the pleadings as to his rashness and negligence which resulted in the accident.