K.L. Wadane, J.

1. 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. Therefore, the present appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows :

3. The parties are referred to their original status.

4. The claimants have filed the petition under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs.6,40,000/-. The claimant no.1 is the widow of deceased Saularam and the claimant nos. 2 to 4 are his minor daughters.

5. On the day of the accident i.e. on 29.11.2006 at about 19.00 hours the deceased Saularam was walking on the road leading from Morjim to Tembwado-Mapusa after alighting from the bus. At the relevant time of the accident, the bus bearing registration No. GA-01-U-1262 came from opposite side in a very high speed in rash and negligent manner and gave tremendous dash to Saularam due to which Saularam sustained grievous injuries and died.

6. According to the claimants, the accident occurred due to negligence of the bus driver who fled away after the accident. The respondent no.1 filed his written statement and he denied the fact of accident i.e. the involvement of the bus in the alleged accident. Alternatively, he has contended that he was holding a valid driving licence however, he has been falsely implicated in a criminal case by the police.

7. The respondent no.2 also denied almost all the contents of the petition at Exhibit 1. However, it has admitted the insurance of the vehicle at the relevant time of the accident. The age, occupation and income of the deceased has been denied. Looking to the rival contentions of both the parties, the learned Tribunal has framed the two issues. The first issue was relating to the rash and negligent and second was for the entitlement of compensation. Before the learned Tribunal, the claimant no.1 testified herself by filing affidavit at Exhibit 21 and the claimants have examined AW2 Anant Kenkre, ASI and AW3 Bablo Kannaik to prove the contents of the spot panchanama and sketch. To prove the factual aspect of the accident, the claimants have mostly relied upon the evidence of AW4 Shamsundar Kerkar and AW5 Gundu Naik, SDPO.

8. As against this, the respondent no.1 has examined himself. Considering the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim petition on the ground that the claimants have failed to prove that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver/respondent no.1.

9. I have heard the arguments of Mr. J. Mulgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the claimants/appellants and Mr. E. Afonso, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2.

10. With the help of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have also gone through the entire evidence on record. Considering the evidence on record and upon hearing both the sides, the following point arises for my determination.

	POINT FOR DETERMINATION	FINDING
1.	Whether the claimants have proved that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing registration No. GA-01-U-1262 driven by respondent no. 1 ?	Affirmative
2.	What order ?	Appeal is allowed.

11. Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the claimants/appellants by referring the evidence of AW1 and AW4 has argued that both the witnesses are the eye witnesses to the accident who have clearly deposed about the involvement of the bus in the accident by which the bus gave dash to the deceased. Therefore, according to Mr. Mulgaonkar, there is evidence in the present matter which is sufficient to establish the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent no.1. He further argued that after the ac