Case Note & Summary
These two first appeals arose from awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Goa in Claim Petition Nos.214 of 2009 and 215 of 2009. First Appeal No.30 of 2015 concerned a claim filed by the widow and two children of late Akbar Shaikh, while First Appeal No.29 of 2015 concerned a claim by his son Tanvir Shaikh for injuries sustained in the same accident. The accident occurred on 31 May 2008 involving a bus owned by the appellant, Karnataka Road State Transport Corporation, and driven by Maruti Badiger, and a lorry driven by late Akbar Shaikh. The appellant did not dispute the factum of the accident or the quantum of compensation but challenged the Tribunal's finding that the accident was caused due to rashness and negligence on the part of the bus driver. The appellant contended that this finding was perverse and unsustainable, and that an earlier award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karwar in M.V.C. No.104 of 2009 had held the lorry driver negligent and that this finding, being unchallenged, operated as res judicata against the claimants who were legal representatives of the deceased lorry driver. The appellant also relied on police documents, including the FIR, scene sketch, and panchanama, to argue that the lorry driver was at fault. Additionally, the appellant raised grounds of non-joinder of necessary parties and that the quantum awarded was contrary to settled principles under the Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court of Bombay at Goa framed two principal issues: first, whether the Tribunal's finding on the bus driver's negligence was barred by res judicata; and second, whether that finding was otherwise contrary to the evidence on record. The court observed that the grounds of appeal did not include any ground based on res judicata, and that it did not appear that this plea was raised before the Goa Tribunal. The extracted portion of the judgment ends without recording a final decision or direction on these issues. Therefore, the final outcome of the appeals is not available in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Res Judicata - Applicability of Earlier MACT Award Findings - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Res Judicata Principle - The appellant contended that the earlier MACT Karwar award in M.V.C. No.104/2009, which held the lorry driver negligent, operated as res judicata and barred the Goa Tribunal from recording a contrary finding that the bus driver was negligent. The court noted that the principle of res judicata is based on public policy to avoid vexing parties twice, but also recorded that the plea was apparently not raised before the Goa Tribunal and was not taken in the appeal grounds. The extracted text ends before a final holding on this issue. (Paras 6-12). B) Motor Accident Claims - Negligence - Finding of Rash and Negligent Driving - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The appellant argued that the evidence on record, including police documents, scene sketch, and panchanama, established that the accident occurred due to the rashness of the deceased lorry driver and not the bus driver, and that the Goa Tribunal misconstrued the evidence. The court framed an issue whether this finding was contrary to evidence and examined the grounds of appeal, noting that grounds attacked the finding on merits but did not invoke res judicata. The final determination is not present in the provided text. (Paras 8-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the finding recorded by the Goa Tribunal about the accident being caused due to rashness and negligence on the part of the Appellant's bus driver – Maruti Badiger is barred by the principle of res judicata; and whether such finding is, even otherwise, contrary to the evidence on record.
Law Points
- res judicata based on public policy to avoid vexing parties twice
- findings in earlier MACT award bind parties and persons claiming under them
- motor accident claims under Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- rash and negligent driving
- non-joinder of necessary parties
- quantum of compensation under settled principles
