PREMANANDGANESH NAIK Vs. DINANATH SHANKAR GAONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE injured victim has filed this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the Judgment and Award dated 14/16.08.2008 delivered by Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao, in Claim Petition no. 235 of 2005. The accident in this case has taken place on 29.05.2005 at about 8.10 p.m. The facts of accident or place of accident is not in dispute.

(2.) THE Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found that claimant sustained fracture injuries and dis -figuration of right eye as also permanent disability. It also held that he established his employment as a bus attendant and wage of Rs. 3,700/ - per month. While answering the issue about the amount of compensation i.e. issue no. 6, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found that claimant could not establish his entitlement to compensation of Rs.8,66,545/ -. In paragraph 43, it worked out its total entitlement to Rs.3,67,400/ -. However, as it held that Appellant could not establish the negligence on the part of the driver of other vehicle and as the Respondent no. 1 i.e. owner of other vehicle and Respondent no. 2 -Insurance Company established that Appellant was negligent, it rejected the Claim Petition.

(3.) IN view of this factual material available on record, without prejudice to other arguments, learned Counsel submits that even if it is for the time being presumed that sketch of accident shows correct position, merely because Appellant -claimant was on wrong side of road, that itself will not be sufficient to deny him compensation. She states that because of disability and disfigurement, Appellant is not in a position to earn anything and hence failure to extend benefit of welfare provision in this situation, is arbitrary. She has also invited attention to the sketch map which shows the road and the vehicles involved in accident to urge that it does not correctly depict the situation. Attention is invited to spot panchanama with contention that looking to the force with which both motorcycles head on collided with each other, the other motorcycle could not have been found on katcha road at a distance of roughly three metres from the motorcycle of claimant. She further submits that some one has lifted that motorcycle from the place where it was lying and as such the sketch is unreliable.