JUDGMENT :

M.S. SONAK, J.

1. Heard Mr. Shailesh Redkar, learned Counsel for the appellant. The respondents, though served, are neither present nor represented.

2. Since the appeal is of the year 2016 and was duly notified on the cause list, the matter cannot be adjourned any further.

3. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 03.03.2016 in Claim Petition No. 122 of 2014 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) dismissing the Claim Petition because the claimants were unable to establish that the accident took place on account of rashness and negligence of respondent no. 1, the driver of the Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No. GA-02-S-0761.

4. Mr. Redkar, firstly submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in not even determining the compensation amount and such approach is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimlesh and Others vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 8 SCC 591.

5. Mr. Redkar then submitted that the Tribunal has adopted a hyper-technical approach for determining rashness and negligence. He relies on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Anita Sharma vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2021) 1 SCC 171, Parmeshwari vs. Amir Chand and Others, (2011) 11 SCC 635, Sunita and Others vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, 2020 (13) SCC 486, Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 and Dulcina Fernandes vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 to submit that the approach of the Tribunal on this issue is contrary to the law laid down in these decisions.

6. Mr. Redkar submits that though respondent no. 1 Milagres took the defense that there was no collision between the Tata Sumo vehicle and the Pulsar motorcycle that Pradeep Gaonkar-deceased was riding, said Milagres failed to step in the box. Mr. Redkar submits that an adverse inference should have been drawn by the Tribunal.

7. Mr. Redkar submits that the Tribunal was not justified in discarding the evidence of eyewitness Kusta Gaonkar (CW-2), simply because this witness was unable to state the registration number of the Tata Sumo vehicle or on account of the reasoning that this witness too would have been hit by the Sumo vehicle if what he was deposing was correct. Mr. Redkar submits that such an approach is directly contrary to the law laid down in Sunita and Others (supra).

8. Mr. Redkar submits that the sketch to the panchanama was admitted to be incorrect by the Investigating Officers. The Tribunal, therefore, erred in placing excessive reliance upon the same. He submits that the approach of the Tribunal, in this case, is contrary to the law laid down in Anita Sharma (supra).

9. Mr. Redkar submits that the material evidence on record has been overlooked and emphasis was laid by the Tribunal on trivial discrepancies. He, therefore, submits that the finding on the aspect of rashness and negligence warrants reversal.

10. Mr. Redkar submits that the income of the deceased Pradeep was Rs. 5,000/- per month. Based thereon compensation of Rs. 8,77,000/- is due and payable to the parents of the deceased Pradeep, who was hardly 21 years old at the time of the accident.

11. Mr. Redkar submits that this appeal be allowed and the respondents be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 8,77,000/- jointly and severally together with interest.

12. Since respondents were neither present nor represented, the material on record was perused in the context of the findings favorable to the respondents recorded by the Tribunal. Based on the evidence on record and the approach to be adopted in such matters, as indicated in the several decisions relied upon by Mr. Redkar, the finding on the aspect of rashness and negligence warrants interference.

13. There is no dispute about the accident that took place on 02.12.2011 at 17:20 hours at Villian, Bhati, Sanguem, Goa, involving the pulsar motorcycle that one Yogesh Gaonkar was riding with the deceased Pradeep Gaonkar as a p