JUDGMENT

V. M. Deshpande, J. (Oral) - The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pusad dated 08.8.2007 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 86 of 2005. By the impugned judgment, the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the appellants/claimants was partly allowed. The Court below directed the respondents herein to pay jointly and severally compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,82,000/- which is inclusive of No Fault Liability claim. Thus, the Court below directed the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 1,32,000/- to the present appellants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. How that compensation should be distributed that apportionment is indicated in the impugned judgment and award.

2. I have heard Shri P.D. Meghe, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri G.G. Mishra, the learned counsel holding for Mrs. I.L. Bodade, the learned counsel for respondent no.2. Though, respondent no.1 is duly served, he chose not to appear before this Court.

3. The undisputed facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under :

Vinod Jadhav, on 28.3.2005 at about 20.30 hours, was standing on the road side near S.T. Stand, Umarkhed. At that time, one bus owned by respondent no.2 having registration No. MH31/ AP9415 came out of the bus stand from wrong gate. That time respondent no.1 was on the wheel of the said offending vehicle and he was driving the bus in rash and negligent manner. In such process of negligent driving, he knocked down Vinod resulting into death on the spot. The offence was registered against respondent no.1 at Police Station, Umarkhed vide Crime No. 51/2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Appellant No.1 is the widow of Vinod. Appellant no. 2, 3 and 5 are the minor daughters and minor son of deceased Vinod and appellant nos. 4 and 6 are the parents of deceased Vinod.

5. A petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation was presented by the appellants before the Claims Tribunal. Said was registered as M.A.C.P. No.86/2005. It was stated in the claim petition that at the time of death, Vinod was 25 years of age and he was doing agricultural work and was in private service. From this, he was earning Rs. 3000/per month. On various other heads, the amount was claimed by way of compensation. However, in the claim petition, the appellants restricted their claim to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/-.

6. Though, respondent no.1 was served with the summons of the claim petition, no written statement was field by him. Respondent no.2 filed its written statement (Exh.19) denying all the allegations. On behalf of the claimants, appellant no.1 Sunita, the widow, entered into the witness box and also examined one witness Arjun Jadhav (PW2) as employer of deceased Vinod. Nobody entered into the witness box for and on behalf of respondent no.2.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties before me and after having perused the record of the Court below, following points do arise for my consideration

1. Whether the Court below has granted just compensation in favour of the claimants ?

2. What order ?

8. Before the Claims Tribunal, respondent no.2 raised a plea that the driver of its bus was not negligent and the deceased himself was negligent. Admittedly, the offence was registered against respondent no.1, the driver of the bus, vide Crime No. 51/2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A of the Indian Penal Code for driving the bus in rash and negligent manner.

9. Be that as it may. The Court below recorded a specific finding that it was the driver of the respondent nos.2''s bus, who was rash and negligent and due to such act, the accident occurred. Though, this finding was recorded against respondent no.2, no appeal is preferred by the respondent no.2 independently or even cross-objection is also not filed in the present appeal filed o