CHANDRABHAGA DASHARATH MORE Vs. JABBARALI IBRAHIMALI SAYYAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the original claimant seeking enhancement in the compensation granted in MACP No.10 of 2005 by learned Member MACT, Jalgaon on 06-08-2010.

(2.) Present appellants are the widow and sons of deceased Dashrath Punju More who expired in an accident that had taken place at about 5.15 p.m. on 01-12-2004. He was travelling from rickshaw bearing No.MH-19/Q-5974. When the auto rickshaw was trying to overtake a bullock cart, goods truck bearing No.MH19/2901 came from opposite direction and there was head on collusion between the two vehicles. Dashrath and other persons sitting in the auto rickshaw received serious injuries. They were admitted to the hospital, however Dashrath expired due to the accidental injuries. It is stated that, the said accident had taken place due to the negligence on the part of driver of both the vehicles. Dashrath was 40 years old serving as Assistant Teacher and drawing salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. Respondent No.1 is the owner and driver of auto rickshaw. Respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company with whom auto rickshaw was insured. Respondent No.3 is the owner of the truck and his truck was insured with respondent No.4. Respondent No.5 was the father of deceased Dashrath who also expired during the pendency of this appeal. Respondent No.6 is said to be the stepmother of Dashrath. The claimants had filed said claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for getting compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- together with interest.

(3.) Respondent No.1 failed to file written statement. Respondents No.2, 3 and 4 have filed written statement separately. All of them have denied age, occupation and income of the deceased. Respondent No.2 has denied the averments that the auto rickshaw driver was negligent. Statutory defence has also been taken. Respondents No.3 and 4 have denied the allegations that the truck driver was negligent. Respondent No.4 has also taken statutory defence. Respondents No.5 and 6 by their common written statement contended that, they were depending on the deceased and claimed share from the compensation.