PADMADEVI SHANKARRAO JADHAV Vs. KABALSING GARMILSING SARDARJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the claimants against the award passed by the member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satara, dated 20th February, 1982 in Claims Petition No. 16 of 1979, awarding an amount of Rs. 39,600/- to the minor children and dismissing the claim made by the widow.

(2.) It is an admitted position that the deceased Shankarrao was working as a headmaster in the New English High School at Atit, Taluka and District Satara. On 21st April, 1979 he went to Karad for purchasing materials for the High School building which was then under construction. On that day he halted at Karad. On 22nd April, 1979 he left Karad early in the morning at about 6 a.m. on his motor-cycle. When he came near he Milk Dairy, a goods truck bearing No. MTD 2812 driven by opponent No. 1. Kabalsing came from the opposite direction. It was being driven at a high speed. The said truck, all of a sudden, swerved to its right and after coming near to the motor-cycle of Shankarrao, it gave a dash to it. After the impact, Shankarrao was thrown away from his motor-cycle receiving a number of injuries on his person on account of which he died on the spot. Thus it is the case of the claimants that the death of the Shankarrao was caused on the account of the rush and negligent driving of the truck by opponent No. 1 and therefore, they are entitled to get compensation from the owner of the truck as well as the insurer the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The claimants had further stated in their application that the deceased was getting a pay of Rs. 1060/- per month at the time of the death. He was about 38 years of age and was of sound health. He would have earned an amount of Rs. 4, 25, 300/- in case he had not died in the accident. By making allowance for deductions etc. the claimants restricted their claim to Rs. 2,00,000/-.

(3.) Opponents No. 1 and 2 filed their joint Written Statement. They denied that the accident took place on account of the rush and negligent driving of the truck by the truck driver. According to them, the truck driver was driving the truck cautiously and at the normal speed, but the deceased who was coming on the motor-cycle drove it rashly and negligently and dashed against the truck, causing the accident. Thus according to opponents, the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving by Shankarrao, the deceased. They also contained that the amount of compensation claimed by the applicants is excessive and exorbitant. The Insurance Company adopted the contention raised by the opponents Nos. 1 and 2. It also contented that the liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs. 50,000/- only.