The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for claimants to prove the negligence of the driver in claiming compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellants/original claimants against the judgment, order award dated 9.3.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Goa, Mapusa, (“Presiding Officer” for short) in Caim Petition No. 53/2009, by which the claim petition of the appellants is dismissed with no order as to costs. Hence, the present appeal.

2. Parties are referred to as per their original status in the claim petition.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summarised as follows:-

The claimants i.e widow, son and daughter of the deceased Sidharth Pandurang Kambli have filed an application under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (“the Act” for short) claiming compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) from the respondent nos. 1 to 3 being driver, owner and insurer of the matiz car bearing registration no.GA-01-R-1674.

4. It is contended by the claimants that on 1.6.2009 at about 13.10hours on NH17a Goa, driver of the matiz car proceedings from Sanquelim to Margao in a rash and negligent manner and gave dash to the deceased as a result deceased sustained grievous injuries and thereafter resulted in death.

5. Claim petition is opposed by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 by filing their separate written statements. All the respondents have denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased. So also they have denied the fact of the accident itself. Rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent no.1 was specifically denied.

6. To prove the claim of the claimants and the rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent no.1, the claimant no.1 examined herself by filing affidavit at Exh.26 and has produced copy of the FIR , complaint, panchanama, registration particulars of the car, insurance, registration certificate, inquest panchanama, postmortem report, death certificate, school leaving certificate, Exh.27 to Exh.36 respectively.

7. The claimants have examined AW2 Dayanand Naik, the co-worker of the deceased to prove the monthly earning of the deceased, AW3 Dr. S. Dias Sapeco to prove the postmortem report. As against these no evidence is led by the respondents.

8. Considering the pleadings of the parties, the learned Presiding officer framed three issues firstly relating to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1 causing death of the deceased, which is answered in the negative. Second relates to entitlement of the compensation which is answered in the affirmative and third is breach of terms and conditions of the policy which is answered in the negative.

9. The claimants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the reasons recorded to the issue no.1. No appeal or cross objections are filed by the respondents against the findings of the Presiding Officer relating to issue nos. 2 and 3. Hence, findings to the issue nos. 2 and 3 became final. Hence, the only points to be determined in the present appeal is :

Sr.No. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION FINDINGS

1) Whether the claimants have proved that accident which took place on 1.6.2009 due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration no. GA-08-R-1674 by the respondent no.1? Negative.

2) What Order? Appeal is dismissed.

10. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants/claimants and Mr. E. Afonso, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 3.

11. Looking to the pleadings and evidence on record, it is unfortunate for the claimants that their claim for compensation on account of death of only bread earner has been dismissed.

12. Looking to the contents of the petition at Exh.1, it appears that the claimants are claiming compensation under the provision of Section 166 of the Act, based upon the fault. Therefore, it is basically for the claimants to establish that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the respondent no.1.

13. Looking to the pleadings of the petition at Exh.1 relating to the rash