CLARA BARACHO PINTO Vs. VISHNU ANDRADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the above appeals are taken together for final hearing considering that both the appeals challenge the same judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mapusa, dated 09.03.2007 in Claim Petition No. 66/2000. The parties shall be referred to in the manner they so appear in the cause title of the impugned judgment.

(2.) The claimant filed a claim petition claiming interalia that an accident took place on 05.07.2000 at Alto Porvorim near Nova Goa Complex when the husband of the claimant Mario Jose Vaz Ataide e Pinto was crossing the road and at that time a mini truck bearing no. GA-01-T-3710 suddenly came from Mapusa side and in a fast speed. The said truck driven in a rash and negligent manner and from the right hand side of the road and it gave a dash to the husband of the claimant and dashed against his scooter. It is further the case of the claimant that on account of the said impact, her husband was flung towards the other side of the road and sustained grievous injuries on account of which he expired at the hospital. The claimant further pointed out that her husband was 56 years of age at the time of the accident and earning salary of Rs.70,000/- per month and consequently the claimant has raised a total claim to the tune of Rs.47,43,376/-. The claim petition was filed against the respondent no.1 as well as the appellant herein besides an unknown person who was stated to be the driver at the relevant time. The respondent no.1 did not file any written statement nor contest the claim petition filed by the claimant. Only contest was on behalf of the respondent no.2-Insurance Company. The respondent no.2 in their written statement have disputed the claim petition filed by the claimant on the ground that they did not accept the claim of the claimant that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.70,000/-. The respondent no.2 further disputed the fact that there was any rashness and negligent on the part of the concerned vehicle. It is further contention of the respondent no.2 that the driver and the owner was respondent no.1 and further that at the relevant time the respondent no.1 did not hold any valid driving licence and consequently there was a breach of the terms of the policy which entitle the respondent no.2 to refuse the payment of the compensation.

(3.) Shri E. Afonso, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2/appellant in First Appeal No. 166 of 2007 has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the original claim petition filed by the claimant is itself defective as according to him, the opponent no.2 shown therein was an unknown person as the driver of the concerned vehicle.