FRANCIS D’MELLO Vs. CATARINA CARVALHO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ivan Santimano for the appellant and Mr. A.R.S. Netravalkar for respondent no. 3-Insurance Company.

(2.) The challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment and Award dtd. 17/12/2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao (Tribunal), dismissing the appellant's claim petition on the ground that the appellant failed to prove any rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of tipper truck bearing no. GDZ 694 which, according to the appellant, caused the accident, giving rise to the claim.

(3.) Mr. Santimano has submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of rashness and negligence is vitiated by perversity. He submits that the relevant evidence was overlooked and irrelevant considerations are taken into account. He submits that in this case, the driver of the truck chose not to appear before the Tribunal. He submits that the driver of the truck was charged for rash and negligent driving and, in fact, pleaded guilty to such a charge. He relies on a Judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Nagammal v. Muthiraiyan, 2018 Supreme (Mad.) 3043, as well as the decision referred to therein in support of his case that the driver pleading guilty is a relevant piece of evidence to be taken into consideration. He submits that the sketch has been misinterpreted by the learned Tribunal and the evidence of the appellant, as well as another eye witness, has been ignored. He submits that based on the material on record, a clear case of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver was made out.