SHRI K.J. MOHAMMAD, S/O LATE JAFFAR SAB, ABOUT 52 YEARS OF Vs. SHRI GHANSHYAM SINGH, S/O MR. RAMPYARE SINGH, DRIVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal takes exception to the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ("MACT" for short hereinafter) dated 17.11.2005 pursuant to which the learned MACT dismissed the petition. It goes without saying that the appellants are the original claimants being the parents of the deceased who had maintained the petition against the respondents for claiming the compensation in the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- on the demise of their son in a vehicular accident.

(2.) A brief narration of the facts would not be misplaced inasmuch as the appellants who are hereinafter referred to as the claimants had carved a case that their 22 years old son was employed as a Clerk-cum-Manager and drawing a salary of Rs. 3000/- per month and was involved in a fatal accident on the main road leading from Titan towards Vasco while riding his Kinetic Honda Scooter and proceeding from Titan side towards Vasco, being hit by the driver of the tipper coming from the opposite direction. The respondents had taken a plea that the vehicle referred to was not driven by the respondent no.1 nor any other vehicle belonging to the respondent no.2 was driven by him and not involved in the accident resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased. No truck belonging to them was involved in the accident causing the death of the deceased. It was their specific case in defence that the vehicle bearing registration no. CXZ-107215 driven by the respondent no.1 was not involved in the accident which caused the death of the deceased Mansoor Ahmed on 26.11.200 In any event the accident was caused due to his own negligent driving and not due to the fault of any other vehicle and in the process of overtaking another vehicle he had applied brakes to stop his own vehicle to avoid a collision with the oncoming vehicle but due to the pothole ahead of him, he lost his balance and fell down and the rear wheel of the other vehicle which he was overtaking went over him and he died on the spot. They had accordingly prayed for the dismissal of the petition and which ultimately came to be dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT, Margao.

(3.) Shri V.G. Pai Dukle, learned Advocate for the claimants/appellants carved a case that their son was crushed under the rear wheel of the truck driven by the respondent no.1 and they were entitled to the compensation as claimed in the petition of Rs. 4,00,000/- considering his income at Rs. 3000/- per month at the relevant time. He adverted to the evidence of the witnesses and submitted that the judgment was fraught with errors and therefore it justified interference in the appeal. He relied in Const Hanmant Dahiphale and Another v. Smt. Alka Jain and others [2013(2) T.A.C. 419(Del.)], National Insurance Company Ltd v. Rajwinder Kaur and others [(2011(3) T.A.C. 142(P & H)], Saroj Bala v. First Secretary, USSR Embassy, [(2003) 0 Supreme (Del) 21588], Jaswinder Kaur v. Richhpal Singh [(2001) 2ACC 57] and Primary Land Development Bank v. Mangal Chand, [(1998) ACJ 1312].