UJWALA Vs. SHIVSHANKAR ANANDA LONDHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the original claimants challenging findings by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur in M.A.C.P. No.256/2013 dated 23.03.2017, thereby holding the deceased negligent to the extent of 30% and then deducting amount from the total compensation amount.

(2.) The present appellants-original claimants had filed said petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to claim compensation of Rs.90,96,700/- on account of accidental death of Hanmantrao Manikrao Deshmukh. Said Hanmantrao had gone to Latur along with his friend Bhalchandra Rathod on 16.09.2013. After completion of their work, they were returning on motorcycle bearing No.MH 24/X-3631. Deceased was driving the said motorcycle in slow speed and from the extreme left side of his side of the road on Latur-Chakur road. When they reached near Chakur, one Tata Pick up vehicle bearing registration No.MH 26/AD-6283 driven by respondent No.1 came from opposite direction in high speed as well as rash and negligent manner. It gave dash to the motorcycle driven by deceased. Both the riders fell down and Hanmantrao died on the spot. Report regarding the accident was lodged with Chakur Police Station against respondent No.1. It is contended that the said accident took place due to the negligent of respondent No.1. The said vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 on the date of the accident. Hanmantrao was serving as Junior Clerk in Vimalbai Deshmukh Girls School. He was getting salary of Rs.25,420/- per month. On the basis of these c0ntentions, claimants had claimed compensation.

(3.) Respondent No.1 failed to file written statement. Respondent No.2 filed written statement, so also respondent No.3 has filed separate written statement. Both of them have denied all the averments in the claim petition. It is denied that the accident took place due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the Tata Pick up vehicle. Both of them have contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The insurance company has raised statutory defences also.