The court emphasized the importance of analyzing evidence to determine rashness and negligence, and upheld the compensation determination within the bounds of reasonability.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellants are the rider, owner, and the insurance company concerned with TVS Scooty bearing registration No. GA-07-D-9447 was held to be involved in an accident that took place on 15.11.2011 at 14.50 hours near Sreyas Society, Alto Santa Cruz, Goa, in which Joseph John D'Souza who was riding a Suzuki scooter bearing registration No. AP-31-BF-4288 sustained grievous injuries and died.

3. The appellants challenge the judgment and award dated 30.06.2015 in Claim Petition No.28/2012, instituted by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (claimants) by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji (Tribunal) has awarded respondent Nos. 1 to 4 the compensation of Rs.38,25,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till realization of the amount.

4. Mr. Netravalkar learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submits that there is no legal evidence on record to infer any rashness and negligence on the part of the first appellant (Gauri). He submits that the criminal prosecution was lodged against Gauri in which she was duly acquitted.

5. Mr. Netravalkar submits that irrespective of the acquittal in the criminal proceedings, the evidence on record is not sufficient to conclude any rashness and negligence on the part of Gauri even applying the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. He submits that the deposition of Gauri and eye witness Ismail Shaikh (RW2) was unduly discarded by the tribunal. He submits that there was no collision or impact between the two vehicles and the inference to the contrary could not have been drawn on account of some scratch marks on the two vehicles. He submits that such scratch marks could have resulted from any other incident or on account of several other reasons than the alleged impact between two vehicles on 15.11.2011.

6. Mr. Netravalkar submits that the evidence on record establishes that the deceased Joseph was the one who was riding the Suzuki scooter in a rash and negligent manner. He submits that the evidence on record bears out that the deceased Joseph came at a very fast speed from the crossroad joining the main Bambolim to Alto Santa Cruz road, took a right turn towards Bambolim, and lost control after reaching the center of the main road. He submits that Joseph then abandoned his scooter, dived/fell on the center of the road. He submits that this was a case of a self accident and Gauri and her insurer were unnecessarily roped into this matter.

7. Mr. Netravalkar referred to the sketch accompanying the panchanama and tried to demonstrate the claimants' version about the genesis of the accident was almost impossible and Gauri's version was the most probable one. He relied on B. S. Chandrappa Vs Shobha and others, 2003 ACJ 1770 to submit that the sketch of the scene of the accident by police is mandatory and aspect of negligence has to be normally decided by relying upon such sketch. He also relied on rules 3 and 4 of the Road Regulations Rules, 1989 to submit that Joseph breached the same and was, therefore, solely responsible for the accident.

8. Mr. Netravalkar then submitted that in the absence of any rashness or negligence on the part of Gauri, the tribunal erred in foisting liability of payment of compensation on Gauri and her insurer.

9. Mr. Netravalkar, without prejudice to the aforesaid, submitted that the compensation determined by the tribunal was neither just nor proper. He pointed out that there was no evidence of Joseph being eligible to earn some pension or that Joseph or his family was denied pension on account of the demise of Joseph. He submitted that Joseph was 6.1 feet tall and obese according to the Autopsy report. He pointed out that this is contributory to his losing control and causing the self accident. He pointed out that this must also be the cause why Joseph retired from his earlier service at the age of 58 years. He pointed out that the determination of compens