PREMANAND GANESH 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.

(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.) ADVOCATE Ms. Desai, has pointed out that because of the impact at the time of accident, claimant became unconscious. He, however, has pointed out the circumstances prevailing just prior to accident and deposed that motorcycle of Respondent no. 1 came in speed and it was being driven in rash and negligent manner. He further submits that only available eye witness namely Vinay Naik has been examined. The said witness was following claimant -Appellant and watched the accident. His deposition also shows that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the other vehicle. By placing reliance upon his evidence, learned Counsel contends that in any case, the said other vehicle namely motorcycle GA -02 -Q -0556 was carrying a rider and two pillion passengers, thus total three persons were travelling on it and this is contrary to Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Submission is the Respondent no. 1 had therefore violated the legal provisions.