TEJABAI W/O VAIJNATH SURYAWANSHI Vs. LATIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the original claimant for enhancement in the compensation granted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

(2.) The claimant had filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No.16 of 2014 before Ex-Officio Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Latur, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for getting compensation. She had contended that, she is 35 year old labour, earning about Rs.6,000/- per month by doing labour work. She was travelling from S.T. Bus bearing No.MH-20/D-9800 with her daughter and grandchild on 10-10-2011 from Nilanga to Latur. When the bus reached near 'Tamberwadi Pati,' one truck bearing No.MH-21/6444 came from opposite direction in high speed and excessive speed and dashed against S. T. Bus. It was contended that, the bus driver was also rash and negligent and then there was a head-on collision between the two vehicles. She sustained grievous injuries to the right elbow joint in the accident. According to her the accident had occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of both the drivers. The fact of accident was reported to police. She was shifted to hospital. She has taken the treatment, however the injuries have turned into permanent disability for her. She is unable to perform her duties as before. The offending truck was driven by respondent No.1 and was owned by respondent No.2 as well as insured with respondent No.3 on the date of the accident. Respondent No.4 is the driver of the bus who was in employment of respondent No.5. Thus, she has claimed compensation of Rs.14,82,000/-, however restricted the same to Rs.2,00,000/- for Court fee.

(3.) The matter proceeded ex-parte against respondents No.1 and 2, and without written statement against respondent No.4. Respondents No.3 and 5 had filed separate written statements and denied all the averments in the petition. It was denied by respondent No.3 that, the truck driver was rash or negligent whereas respondent No.5 denied that respondent No.4 was rash or negligent. They blamed rival drivers for the accident and prayed for exoneration of themselves. Age, occupation and income of the injured was denied so also the fact that she has sustained permanent physical disablement. The Insurance Company of the truck has taken statutory defences also.