1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 213 OF 2002 Shri Narayan T. Pai, 55 years old, Businessman, Indian National Residing at St. Pedro, Ribandar, Tiswadi – Goa. ... Appellant versus 1. Shri Harischandra Naik, major of age, Indian National, Residing at Gavane, Ponda-Goa. 2. M/s. Jaibharat Transport Company, through its Managing Director/Manager Mardol-Goa. 3. M/s. New India Insurance Company, Plaza, Chamber, Dr. Atmaram Borkar Road, Panaji-Goa. ... Respondents Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. E. Afonso, Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2008. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned Counsel on behalf of both parties. 2. This appeal is directed against Judgment dated 14-3-2002 of the learned M.A.C.T., Panaji by which the Claim Petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 3. The appellant was the claimant in the said Claim Petition and shall hereto be referred as such. There is no dispute that the accident took place involving two vehicles, namely bus bearing No.GDS 2023 driven by respondent no.1 and scooter bearing No.GA-01-A-9476 driven by the deceased son of the claimant respondent no.1. 4. The case was filed with the allegation that it is respondent no.1 who had driven the said bus in a rash and negligent manner. There is no dispute that the deceased Trambakesh Pai, the driver of the said scooter died in the said accident. In support of the claim, the claimant had examined one Teodosio Rodrigues. Respondent No.1 had examined himself. 5. The learned Claims Tribunal after assessing the documentary as well as the oral evidence led by both the parties came to the conclusion that the evidence of the said Teodosio Rodrigues/CW2 was not convincing as he had not spoken the truth. The learned M.A.C.T. also came to the conclusion that there 3 were no grounds to disbelieve the evidence of Respondent No.1 and considering the same the learned M.A.C.T. came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place solely on account of the fault of the deceased scooterist Trambakesh Pai and not on account of the fault of respondent no.1, the driver of the bus, and, as such the claimant was not entitled for any compensation. 6. The claimant himself had produced the panchanama and the sketch drawn by the Investigating Officer and the said Investigating Officer had filed a case against the deceased driver of the said scooter. It may be that filing of the said case may not indicate that the said deceased was rash or negligent in driving the said scooter but certainly it was one of the circumstances which certainly could be taken into account to show that it is the deceased who was rash and negligent and not respondent no.1. The sketch produced by the claimant himself shows that the bus was at the extreme left of the road and in fact it shows that the left back wheel of the bus touches the katcha road. There is no dispute that both the vehicles were moving in opposite direction. The scooter of the deceased is shown somewhere under the front wheels of the said bus. The position of both the vehicles as seen on the said panchanama and the sketch corroborate the version of Harichandra Naik/RW1 that the said scooterist in the process of trying to overtake the mini bus and the pick-up came and fell down in front of his bus near the right side tyre of the bus, and falsifies the version of the said Teodosio Rodrigues that the accident took place while respondent no.1 was trying to overtake the maruti car. If that was so, the bus would have been on the right side of the road and not 4 on its extreme left side, as can be seen from the sketch produced by the claimant. Learned Counsel on behalf of the claimant has pointed out to the panchanama and submitted that the body of the deceased was dragged after giving the dash and therefore that would show that respondent no.1 was rash and negligent in driving the bus. Indeed, the panchanama and the sketch show that the body of the deceased had dragged at a distance of about 32 feet. It is quite possible, considering the speed of the said scooter, that after it hit the bus it got entangled below the wheels of the bus that the body dragged to that distance but under no circumstances, from the said circumstance, inference can be drawn that it was the bus driver who was rash and negligent. 3. The learned M.A.C.T. could not therefore be faulted in accepting the respondents evidence and rejecting that of the claimant. It was necessary for the claimant to prove that it is respondent no.1 who was rash and negligent in driving his bus before proceeding to recover compensation from him. 4. There is no merit in this appeal and consequently the same is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD