GOVIND BABURAO BHONSLE Vs. JAIWANT SURYA MOPKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD rival arguments on this First Appeal preferred by original respondents no. 1 & 2, i.e. the owner and driver of the offending motor vehicle.

(2.) IN the present appeal, the judgment and award passed in Claim Petition No. 44/2007 is challenged. Initial Claim Petition was for Rs. 10.00 lakhs. It was partly allowed and present appellants, both the respondents, were jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 5,65,000/ - to the claimants, that is the parents and brother of the victim. The amount was also to carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till realisation. Costs of the petition were also awarded.

(3.) THE accident occurred at about 8.40 a.m. on 24/08/2006 when both the vehicles were coming from opposite direction. Admittedly, respondent no. 2 was driving the Indica car which was owned by respondent no. 1. Rash and fast driving of the Indica car has been substantiated by the evidence led before the Court by way of police constable, who drew the panchanama and the sketch produced on record and by the factual position that the Indica car was found on the spot in upside down condition and was completely on the wrong side of the road. In the said accident there were three other motorcycles involved, which were lying on the road. One of the motorcycles was being driven by the victim Surya. Apparently he died on the spot. The accidental death has not been disputed and it has been established. Though respondent no. 1 entered into defence by examining himself nothing could be brought on record in order to substantiate the defence that the victim himself was driving the two wheeler vehicle in rash and negligent manner. It is significant to note that the victim was riding on two wheeler whereas the impact is by way of the dash given by the Tata Indica car which is a four wheeler. Moreover, it is still significant to note that the accident occurred when the motor car had left its track and went towards wrong side of the road. This is substantiated by the sketch drawn during spot panchanama and the wheel marks found on the road, which are to the extent of about 18 metres. This indicates rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent no. 1 and in the opinion of this Court, it has been rightly held so by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mapusa, Goa.