The Court held that the MACT was correct in holding that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the KRTC bus driver and that the compensation awarded by the MACT was just and reasonable.

1. Heard Mr. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Afonso, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5. None present on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 4, though duly served after admission. In view of order dated 17.11.2011, appeal stands dismissed against respondent no. 6 for want of prosecution.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.03.2008, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao (M.A.C.T., for short), in Claim Petition No. 294/2005.

3. The appellant was respondent no. 2 in the said petition. The respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 were the applicants and respondents no. 4, 5 and 6 were respondents no. 3, 4 and 1 respectively in the said claim petition. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said claim petition.

4. The applicants had filed the said claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M. V. Act, for short) for grant of total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of death of the husband of applicant no. 1 and father of the applicants no. 2 and 3. The name of the deceased was Surendra Data Pagui alias Surendra Data Namshikar.

5. Case of the applicants, in short, was as follows:-

On 22.07.2005, the deceased who was driver-cum-salesman working for respondent no. 3 since June, 2003, as usual, loaded the vehicle Canter Swaraj Mazda, bearing registration no. GA-02/U-6092, belonging to the respondent no. 3 and insured with respondent no. 4, with the sales items and proceeded from Canacona Industrial Estate to Vasco-da-Gama. When he reached Upasnagar, Birla, a KRTC bus bearing registration no. KA-28/F-1107, belonging to the respondent no. 2 and driven by respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent manner gave dash to the said canter causing serious injuries to him and one another person travelling with him. As a result of the said accident, the deceased died on 30.07.2005 at Goa Medical College, Bambolim. The accident took place entirely due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1. The deceased was 40 years old working as driver-cum-salesman for respondent no. 3 and was earning monthly income of Rs. 5,500/-.

6. The respondents no. 1 and 2 filed written statement denying the case of the applicants and stated that the deceased was driving the Canter Swaraj Mazda carelessly, without looking at the traffic from opposite direction and at a fast speed and in rash and negligent manner. They pleaded that the said canter came in the direction of bus and though respondent no. 1 tried to avoid the dash, however he could not, and the said canter dashed against the bus. They stated that the KRTC bus was driven slowly and by observing all the Rules on the road.

7. Respondents no. 3 and 4 also denied the case of the applicants. They stated that the applicants did not have any cause of action against them, since the accident had taken place entirely because of rash and negligent driving of KRTC bus, driven by the respondent no. 1, and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased.

8. Accordingly, the learned M.A.C.T. framed issues as per the rival contentions of the parties. The applicants examined applicant no. 1, Smt. Neelima Pagui as AW-1; Shri Dashrath Rashalkar as AW-2; Shri Mohammed Altaf Kadar as AW-3; Shri Abdul Salam as AW-4; Dr. Madhu Ghodkirekar as AW-5 and Shri Subhash Talekar as AW-6. The respondents no. 1 and 2 examined the respondent no. 1, Shri Dharmaraj Tadalagi as RW-1; Shri Vithal Dhondappa Mane as RW-2 and Shri Sakaram Sitaram Kalse as RW-3.

9. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned M.A.C.T. held that the accident had taken place entirely due to the fault of the driver of KRTC bus and that there was no contributory negligence or otherwise on the part of the deceased. The learned M.A.C.T. held that age of the deceased was 40 years and he was earning monthly income of Rs.5,500/-. Thus, applying the multiplier of 15 an