Case Note & Summary
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 03.11.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mapusa, by which the claim petition of the claimants has been dismissed. The claimants, Smt. Sneha Saularam Bankar (widow) and her three minor daughters, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.6,40,000/- for the death of Saularam Bankar in a road accident. On 29.11.2006 at about 19.00 hours, the deceased was walking on the road leading from Morjim to Tembwado-Mapusa after alighting from a bus. At that time, a bus bearing registration No. GA-01-U-1262 came from the opposite side at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and gave a tremendous dash to the deceased, causing grievous injuries leading to his death. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimants failed to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the respondent driver. The High Court, on appeal, examined the evidence and found that the Tribunal erred in its appreciation of evidence. The court held that the deceased was walking on the road after alighting from the bus and was hit by the bus coming from the opposite side at high speed, which clearly established the negligence of the bus driver. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's order, directing the respondents to pay compensation to the claimants.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Negligence - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Claim for Compensation - The claimants, widow and minor daughters of deceased, filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation of Rs.6,40,000/- for death of deceased in a road accident. The Tribunal dismissed the claim holding that claimants failed to prove negligence of bus driver. On appeal, the High Court held that the Tribunal erred in its appreciation of evidence and that the deceased was walking on the road after alighting from bus and was hit by the bus coming from opposite side at high speed, establishing negligence of the driver. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the claimants failed to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the respondent driver.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and award dated 03.11.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mapusa is set aside. The respondents are directed to pay compensation to the claimants.
Law Points
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 166
- Negligence
- Burden of Proof
- Compensation
- Rash and Negligent Driving
- Pedestrian Accident
