Vibha Kankanwadi JUDGMENT
Vibha Kankanwadi, J.
1. Present appeal has been filed by the original claimants challenging the dismissal of their claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 84 of 2009, dated 16-01-2018. [Parties are referred as per their nomenclature before the Tribunal.]
2. The petitioners had come with a case, that petitioner no. 01 is the widow. Petitioner no. 02 is the mother and petitioners no. 03 to 05 are children of deceased Ashok Keru Balsaraf. Said Ashok was 42 years old, centering contractor and agriculturist, who used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month from centering contract and Rs. 10,000/- per month from agriculture. Deceased Ashok was proceeding from Sangamner to Akole at about 02.30 p.m. on 15-03-2009 on his motorcycle bearing temporary registration mark MH-17-TC-155/156/157. When he came near brick kiln of one Jorvekar on Sangamner-Akole road, he was dashed by Bolero jeep bearing No. MH-12/BG-4170 driven by opponent no. 03. The said jeep had come from opposite direction. It is stated that it was driven in a high speed rashly and negligently. As a result of dash, Ashok fell down, sustained grievous injury and died on the spot. It is stated that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of opponent no. 03 against whom C.R. No. I-24/2009 was registered with Sangamner City Police Station. It is stated that all petitioners were dependent on the income of the deceased and, therefore, they have claimed compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- together with interest.
3. Opponents no. 02 and 03 filed written statement at Exhibit 22, who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Opponent no. 01 is the Insurance Company. It has filed written statement at Exhibit 26. All of them have denied the allegations about rashness and negligence and involvement of the vehicle i.e. Bolero jeep bearing No. MH-12/BG-4170. They have denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased. They have admitted that opponent no. 01 had insured the Bolero jeep on the date of the accident. However, opponent no. 01 has taken statutory defences also.
4. Taking into consideration the rival contentions, issues have been framed. The petitioners have led evidence of petitioner no. 01 who has been cross examined by the opponents. However, there is no evidence led by the opponents.
5. Taking into consideration the evidence on record and hearing both sides, the learned Member of the Tribunal has held that the petitioners have failed to prove that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of opponent no. 03. Though it was held that Ashok died in that accident, the petition itself was dismissed on 16-01-2018. Hence, this first appeal.
6. Heard learned Advocate Mr. R.L. Kute appearing for the appellants-original claimants. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar appearing for respondent no. 01-Insurance Company. None for respondents no. 02 and 03, though served.
7. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellants, that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the documents on record. Though certified copies of the police papers were produced, they were not exhibited and especially the first information report has not been considered. Much stress has been given on the contents of the panchanama, but the Tribunal failed to consider the directions in proper perspective. Though petitioner no. 01 had not seen the accident, she had relied on the police papers and on the basis of the same, she had made a categorical statement that the jeep had come to the wrong side before giving dash to the motorcycle driven by Ashok. There is no proper appreciation of the evidence in respec........