KANCHANMALA VIJAYSING SHIRKE Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ratnagiri is under challenge in these Appeals. First Appeal No. 890 of 1984 has been filed by the original claimants challenging dismissal of their claim against original Opponent Nos. 1 to 3 and claiming enhancement of compensation. first Appeal No. 147 of 1985 has been filed by the original Opponent No. 4 holding him liable for payment of compensation. Both these appeals involve common questions of law and facts and, therefore, can be conveniently decided by this common judgment. The reference to parties hereafter shall be made with reference to First Appeal No. 890 of 1984.

(2.) THE Civil Application No. 1935 of 1987 dated 3-1-1985 has been filed for bringing on record the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 1981 by which the respondent No. 4 (original Opponent No. 4) came to be acquitted of charges under section 279, 304-A of IPC and section 116 of Motor Vehicles Act. By consent of the parties the Civil Application is granted.

(3.) THESE appeals arise out of the claim Application filed by the Appellants under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereafter Motor Vehicles Act) claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for the death of Vijaysing, who was the husband of Appellant No. 1 and father of Appellant Nos. 2 and 3. On 31-3-1980 at about 10-00 p. m. opposite S. T. Divisional Office, Ratnagiri, fatal accident took place in which the said Vijaysing died. At that time Vijaysing was driving the scooter and the jeep came from opposite direction. Jeep dashed against him and due to its impact, he was thrown on the road and sustained serious injuries. He was moved to the hospital but succumbed to the injuries. The jeep was owned by the respondent No. 1 (original opponent No. 1) and at the relevant time it was allotted for use to respondent No. 2 (original apponent No. 2) as an Officer of respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 3 (original opponent No. 3) was the authorised driver of the said jeep and respondent No. 4 (original opponent No. 4) was serving as a clerk in the office of the respondent No. 2 and was driving the jeep at the time of the accident, though he had disputed this fact.