SHRINIWASAN RAUT Vs. A.V. SHRINIWASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the owner of the Truck as well as Insurance Company against the Award passed by the Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune dated 26th of February 1980 in Applications Nos. 9 and 10 of 1977.

(2.) IT is an admitted poition that an accident took place on the night between 21st and 22nd of February 1976 in which the deceased Captain Ravichandran died on the spot. It is also an admitted position that the Captain Ravichandran and his wife Mythily were proceeding on a scooter and a truck driven by D.W. Sampat was coming from the opposite side. Mythily was occupying the pillion seat at the material time and the scooter was proceeding along Bombay, Pune Road. It is the case of the claimants that Captain Ravichandran was driving his scooter slowly on the left hand side of the road whereas the truck driven by Sampat came from the opposite direction and was being driven at as recklessly high speed and without sounding any horn. It had only one head-light and that too on the left side and the driver of the lorry was careless and negligent in driving. Thus the driver was driving the truck carelessly and disregarded the safety rules. Ultimately he lost his control over his vehicle, suddenly swerved to the wrong side and in the process hit the scooterist with violent force, and as result of this accident Smt. Mythily fell down and the scooter got in the wheel of the lorry and was dragged to a distance of about 50 feet when the truck ultimately stopped. As a result of this violent drag Captain Ravichandran died on the spot. Thus it was the case of the claimants that because of the negligent driving of Sampat the truck driver, accident took place resulting in the death of Captain Ravichandran and serious injuries to Mrs. Mythily. The statements made in the application by the claimants was denied by the opponents. In all two separate applications came to be filed one by the widow of the deceased for the injuries sustained by her and the another by Mrs. Mythily and her parents. Both these applications were heard together and were also disposed of by a common judgment In support of their case, claimants examined Smt. Mythily wife of the deceased who is also an eye witness since she was sitting on the pillion of the scooter when the unfortunate accident took place. The claimants had also examined Suresh Dnyaneshwar Kulkarni, section officer C.D.O. Pune to prove the emoluments-drawn by the deceased. P.W.3 Kallappa is a panch witness to the panchnama. P.W.4 is Captain Ashok Kumar who has produced the documents to prove the pay scale etc of the deceased. P.W.5 Chandrikaprasad is the Army Medical officer who has proved the injuries sustained by Smt. Mythily. P.W.6 Deshmukh is also examined to prove the service rules by which the deceased was governed. P.W.7 A.V. Shrinivasan is the father of the deceased. So far as the opponents are concerned, they examined Sampat the driver of the truck. After appreciating all the evidence on record the learned Member of the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place because of the negligent driving by Sampat the truck driver. The learned Member has recorded a positive finding that the truck driven by Sampat which came from the opposite direction was being driven racklessly at a high speed without sounding any horn and having only one head light on the left side. The learned member also came to the conclusion that the Captain Ravichandran was driving his scooter on the left hand side of the road and was not negligent at all. As a result of this finding and after taking into consideration the emoluments which the deceased might have received in his service career, the learned Member came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to get compensation at Rs. 1,75,000/- so far as the deceased Captain is concerned. He also found that Smt. Mythily was entitled to get Rs. 20,500/- as additional compensation for the injuries sustained by her. Thereafter the learned Member passed the order of apportionment of compensation. As already observed it is this award made by the learned Member which is challenged in the present first appeal.

(3.) ON the other hand it is contend ed by Shri Tripnis, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, that on the material placed on record it is more than clear that the accident took place because of the negligent driving of the truck driver. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is contended by Shri Tipnis that what was awarded is also grossly inadequate. Therefore in any case on interference is called for with the award passed by the Tribunal.