UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. XAMA SHYAMSUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. E. Afonso, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D. Gaonkar, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3.

(2.) BY this appeal, the appellant/ United India Insurance Co. Ltd has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the Judgment and award dated 9.1.2007 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Goa, Panaji in Claim Petition No. 32/2001. By the said judgment and award, Claim Petition of respondent nos. 1 to 3 came to be allowed and they were held entitled for a total compensation for an amount of Rs. 7,35,000/ - with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

(3.) RESPONDENT nos. 1 to 3 filed Claim Petition No. 32/2001 in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at North Goa, Panaji against respondent nos. 4 and 5 and the appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The case of respondent nos. 1 to 3 was that on 2.4.2000, the deceased Shyamsunder Gopi Dhavaskar, the husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondent nos. 2 and 3 was proceeding from Panaji to GMC Bambolim on his scooter bearing No. GA -01 -K -1562 for official work. The deceased had reached near Santa Cruz Merces Junction, at that time a TVS Suzuki motor bike bearing No. GA -01 -H -3827 driven by respondent no.5 came from opposite direction and dashed against his scooter as a result deceased Shyamsunder Gopi Dhavaskar fell down and sustained injuries. He was admitted in GMC Bambolim where he succumbed to his injuries while undergoing treatment. It is specific case of respondent nos. 1 to 3 that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 5. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 also contended that the deceased was a police constable and at the time of accident he was 44 years old. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 also contends that salary of the deceased at the relevant time was Rs.5,831/ - per month. In the circumstances, they claimed compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/ - from respondent nos. 4, 5 and the appellant. Respondent no. 4, contested the Claim Petition by filing written statement at Exh.12. Respondent no. 4 admitted that he is the owner of the motorcycle bearing No. GA - 01 -H -3827 and on the relevant day respondent no.5 was driving this motorcycle. Respondent no. 4 however, disputed that the motorcycle bearing No. GA -01 -H -3827 was involved in the accident. Respondent no. 4 contended that one Maruti Omni bearing No. GA -01 -T -2452 was involved in the accident in which deceased suffered injuries and subsequently died. Respondent no. 5 did not file any written statement. The appellant also contested the claim by filing written statement at Exh. 16. Defence of the appellant was similar to that of respondent no. 4 namely that one Maruti Omni was involved in the accident and that TVS Suzuki bearing No. GA -01 -H -3827 was not involved in the accident and, therefore, not liable to pay compensation.