GHANSHYAM A. PAWAR Vs. CHANDRAKANT S. DESSAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri A. R. S. Netravalkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and none for the respondent though served. The above appeal was heard partly on 16.04.2012 and an opportunity was given to the respondent to appear before this Court today and argue the matter but however none appeared for the respondent when the matter was taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 31.10.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji Goa, in Claim Petition No. 106/1999 whereby the claim petition filed by the respondent came to be partly allowed and the appellants were directed inter -alia to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - as compensation to the respondent on account of an accident involving the vehicle driven by the respondent with the truck driven by the appellant no. 1.

(3.) SHRI Netravalkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment essentially on the ground that according to the learned Counsel there was no rashness and negligence on the part of the appellant no. 1 which resulted in an accident. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the evidence on record suggest that the vehicle driven by the appellant no. 1 was at a slow pace on account of oncoming vehicles from the opposite direction and that the vehicle driven by the respondent was on the rear side and which was driven at a fast speed and as the respondent no. 1 lost control of the vehicle, came and dashed against the rear side of the truck driven by the appellant no. 1. The learned Counsel further points out that as per the Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1949, it was incumbent upon the respondent to take necessary precautions to ensure that such situation would not result in an accident. The learned Counsel has taken me through the said Regulations and pointed out that considering the said Regulations, the question of contending that there was rashness and negligence on the part of the appellant no. 1 would not arise at all. The learned Counsel has further taken me through the evidence of CW4 as well as the evidence of RW1 and pointed out that there is sufficient material on record to suggest that the accident solely occurred on account of rashness and negligence on the part of the respondent/claimant. The learned Counsel as such submits that the findings given by the learned Tribunal to the effect that there was negligence on the part of the appellant no. 1 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Shri Netravalkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant further pointed out that without prejudice to his first submission in any event the learned Tribunal was not justified to award the compensation on account of pain and suffering to the extent of Rs. 10,000/ - and further a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - on account of fact that the respondent has suffered a fracture. The learned Counsel further pointed out that once the compensation on account of pain and suffering has been awarded, the question of granting any further compensation would not arise. The learned Counsel as such submits that as far as the compensation on account of fracture awarded by the learned Tribunal of Rs. 15,000/ - is to be quashed and set aside. The learned Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in : 2009 ACJ 2719 in the case of Prasanna V/s Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. The learned Counsel as such submits that the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside.