MADHAVI G. AMONKAR Vs. CRISTEU DIAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal arises out of the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the Taluka of Salcete at Margao in Claim Petition on 12.06.2008, by which this claim petition filed by the appellant is rejected with costs, mainly on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove the involvement of the respondent no. 1 and his vehicle in the accident.

(2.) THE case of the claimant, aged about 40 years at the time of the accident, is that while walking on the katcha road facing Betalbatim, the respondent no. 1 gave a dash while riding his motorcycle rashly and negligently because of which she sustained injuries.

(3.) SHRI Kakodkar, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in recording the finding that the accident had not occurred due to the vehicle driven by the respondent no. 1. The learned Advocate has submitted that the appellant has stated in her evidence that the respondent no. 1 while riding TVS Suzuki motorcycle bearing no. GA -02/T -0443 gave her a dash because of which she fell on the ground and sustained injuries. The learned Advocate submitted that in the evidence of the appellant she has stated that the respondent no. 1 had lost control of the motorcycle due to rash and negligent riding. It has come in the cross examination of the appellant that she was familiar with the face of the respondent no. 1 as he used to pass by her house regularly. The learned Advocate for the appellant has relied on the First Information Report against the respondent no. 1 and the prosecution of the respondent no. 1 and has submitted that it shows the involvement of the respondent no. 1 and his motorcycle in the accident. The learned Advocate for the appellant has pointed out the statement of Smt. Rosita Pinto, aged about 73 years, to the effect that the respondent no. 1 was riding the motorcycle in a fast speed and he lost his control and dashed the motorcycle to the appellant, because of which she fell on the ground. It has come on the record that Smt. Rosita Pinto is the neighbor of the appellant. The learned Advocate for the appellant has further pointed out the panchanama (Exhibit no. 20) which is at page no. 40 of the paper book which shows that vehicle was seized from the spot of the accident between 17:00 to 17:30 hours on 27.02.2002. The submission on behalf of the appellant is that the material on the record shows the involvement of the respondent no. 1 and the motorcycle in the accident and the findings of the Tribunal are contrary to the material on the record. The learned Advocate for the appellant has relied on the following judgments: