KALPANA RAJENDRA KOTHARI Vs. SANTOSH ARVIND JANGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the original claimants challenging the Judgment and Award passed in M.A.C.P. No.19/2016 by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar on 31.03.2018, thereby dismissing their claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the appeal are that the original claimants had come with a case that they are the legal heirs of one deceased Rajendra Kothari. Said Rajendra Kothari was proceeding on a motorcycle at about 1.45 p.m. on 19.12.2015 by Nagar-Solapur road towards Karmala. One Niraj Kothari was riding the said motorcycle and deceased was the pillion rider. When they reached near Kishor Hotel at village Mahi Jalgaon, at that time, their motorcycle was dashed by another motorcycle ridden by one Balasaheb Hanuman Korde. The said motorcycle was bearing No.MH 16/BB-9351, which had come from the opposite direction in high speed. As a result of the dash, the deceased as well as his rider fell down. Deceased sustained grievous injuries. He immediately taken to City Care Hospital, Ahmednagar, however, he succumbed to the injuries. First Information Report was lodged by Niraj Kothari with the police and on the basis of said First Information Report, offence came to be registered against said Balasaheb. It is the contention of the claimants that the said accident took place due to the sole negligence on the part of the Balasaheb. Deceased Rajendra was 55 years old person having his commission agent shop in Market Yard at Mirajgaon. His income was Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- per month. Accordingly, the claimants prayed for compensation from respondent No.1, who was the owner of the offending motorcycle and respondent No.2, with whom the said motorcycle was insured, on the date of the accident.

(3.) Respondent No.1 filed written statement at Exh.15, whereas the insurance company filed written statement at Exh.14. They both had denied all the averments in the claim petition. They denied the fact of accident, involvement of the motorcycle belonging to respondent No.1 and the manner, in which the accident took place, as narrated in the petition. Respondent No.1 has also stated that the rider of the offending vehicle was in high speed and there was no negligence on his part. The insurance company, in addition, had taken defence of breach of terms of policy on the ground that the rider of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to ride the motorcycle, on the date of the accident.