DAMODAR JAIDEV CHODANKAR Vs. SHAILEJA V. TAMBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the original claimant who got a nil Award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Panaji in Claim Petition No. 39/87. What made the Tribunal reject the claim petition instituted by the appellant is that the appellant did not prove that the accident he met with had been caused by rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 2, driver. The Tribunal however, ad cautelam assessed the compensation and held that in the event the appellant had succeeded in proving rashness and negligence on the part of the respondent No. 2 driver, then the appellant would have been entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

(2.) APPELLANT asserted in the claim petition that he was working as a Cleaner in respect of a goods carrying truck bearing Registration No. GDZ-7266. According to him, this truck was employed for bringing earth from the quarry at San Pedro to be dumped for the new road in the making at Merces, Ilhas, Goa. According to him, he came as a Cleaner on that truck on 15th November, 1986 at about 9 a.m. and no sooner that truck came at the site where the earth was to be dumped, he got down from the truck to hand over the slip of having made the trip to one Supervisor and as he was returning, another truck bearing registration No. GDT-6203, owned by the first respondent, driven by the respondent No. 2, which had also brought earth for the same purpose, started coming in reverse so violently that the appellant had no escape and got himself hit and crushed there under. He says the respondent No. 2 did not even bother to find out as to what happened to him, despite several people had shouted and gathered at the site but driver went away. The Claim petition filed by him prayed for a large compensation of Rs. 3,49,000/-.

(3.) CL .W. 2 Vinayak Poi Bir, who is the owner of the truck bearing registration No. GDZ-7266, says that he had employed the appellant as a Cleaner and he was working on his truck some one year prior to the date of the accident which took place on 15th November, 1986. According to the witness the wages of the appellant were Rs. 450/- per month. He otherwise corroborates the statement of the appellant viz. hospitalization at Goa Medical College Hospital. Dr. Talaulikar's Hospital and also at Sion Hospital at Bombay for about two months. Mr. Bir asserts that he has spent nearly Rs. 35,000/- for transport, maintenance, medical fees, medicines, etc. on the aftermath of the accident that had occasioned to the appellant. Cl.W. 3 is Santosh Shet, who asserts that lie used to help the appellant and he was being paid Rs. 25/- per day and this he did for some days when the appellant was either at Goa Medical College Hospital or at Dr. Talaulikar's Hospital. The fourth witness is Cl.W. 4, Dr. Nachinolkar, who is the Professor and Head of the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Goa Medical College, Hospital. He confirmed that the appellant was admitted in the General Surgery Ward on 15th November, 1986 with type 2 fracture of pelvis and rupture of urethra and bulbar portion. Doctor says that as far as the fracture of the pelvis is concerned, it was treated conservatively in the Orthopaedic Department, but the patient was referred to General Surgery for rupture of urethra and the appellant was treated by Dr. Oswaldo D'Sa. Doctor confirms that the fractured pelvis would normally heal within a period of six weeks, thereby leaving no permanent disability. Dr. Oswaldo D'Sa, Cl.W. 5, who is the next witness speaks about the appellant being admitted to the surgical ward on 15th November, 1986 and his discharge on 2nd January, 1987. According to him, the chief complaint of the vehicular accident insofar as the appellant is concerned was the inability to pass urine. He found bladder distended and guarding of the abdominal wall was present. The Doctor affirms that emergency operation was performed and the following was discovered: