Research › Browse › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 641 (BOM)

MARTIN SANTANA VAZ v. SEBASTIAO D'COSTA

1998-11-20

R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR

body1998
JUDGMENT : R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. This appeal arises from the order dated 14.10.1996 passed in Misc. Claim Petition No. 18 of 1994 by the Presiding Officer of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Margao. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has rejected the application for compensation filed u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 hereinafter called as 'the said Act'. 2. It is the case of the appellants that on 13.9.1988, at about 5.45 a.m., one Bartho-lomeu Vaz, the husband of appellant No.1 and the father of appellant Nos. 2 to 4 was hit by a mail van bearing No. GA-01-G-7516 while being driven at a fast speed due to which the said Bartholomeu Vaz suffered severe head injuries as a result of which he expired at the Goa Medical College, Bambolim, on the very day at 10.45 a.m. 3. Along with the main application for compensation, the appellants have filed the present application u/s 140 of the said Act claiming interim compensation of Rs. 25,000. Since the claim of the appellants was disputed, the Tribunal decided to hold necessary enquiry on the point of involvement of the mail van in the accident. In the course of enquiry, the appellants examined four witnesses, namely, Alexandre Vaz, appellant No. 2, one Franscina Vaz, Lourenca Monteiro and Madhukar Gajankar, A.S.I., whereas, the respondents examined the driver of the mail van by name Sebastiao D'Costa. The Tribunal held that the appellants had failed to prove that the postal van had collided against the deceased causing death at the relevant time and, therefore, dismissed the application u/s 140 of the said Act. 4. Upon hearing Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. S.R. Rivonkar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and on perusal of the entire record, the point for determination which arises in this appeal is whether the materials on record prima facie disclose involvement of the mail van in the accident resulting in the death of Bartholomeu Vaz. 5. S.D. Lotlikar, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. S.R. Rivonkar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and on perusal of the entire record, the point for determination which arises in this appeal is whether the materials on record prima facie disclose involvement of the mail van in the accident resulting in the death of Bartholomeu Vaz. 5. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal has disbelieved the evidence produced by the appellants on the point of involvement of the mail van in the accident mainly because the witnesses of the appellants had not seen the actual accident taking place at the relevant time, and as against that, the driver of the mail van had stated that there was no such accident at all involving the mail van. 6. A perusal of the testimony of the witnesses produced by the appellants discloses that Alexandre Vaz had deposed before the court that at the time of lodging of the complaint, he had informed the police that Franscina Vaz and Lourenca Monteiro had been witnesses to the accident. Franscina Vaz, CW 2 has deposed that the driver of the mail van took a turn and brought the van ahead of pick-up and the driver of the van had informed the driver of the pick-up that the left side bumper of the mail van had hit the deceased and he had pointed out the left portion of the bumper of the mail van to be the place where the deceased was hit. The witness Lourenca Monteiro has deposed that she was travelling in the pick-up at the relevant time and at that time, she heard a noise and immediately she saw a person fallen on the ground. At that time, she also saw that the truck and mail van had gone ahead but the driver of the mail van had parked his vehicle on the left side of the road and on being questioned by the driver of the pick-up, the driver of the mail van had told that the deceased was dashed against the mail van. He also further stated that the mail van had stopped on its own. Madhukar Gajankar, A.S.I. has deposed that pursuant to the complaint filed by Alexandre Vaz, he had investigated into the matter and consequently filed the charge-sheet. He also further stated that the mail van had stopped on its own. Madhukar Gajankar, A.S.I. has deposed that pursuant to the complaint filed by Alexandre Vaz, he had investigated into the matter and consequently filed the charge-sheet. He has also admitted that he had recorded the statements of Lourenca Monteiro and Franscina Vaz who had been the witnesses before the Tribunal. 7. The evidence on record, not only discloses the presence of the mail van at the site at the relevant time, but discloses its involvement in the accident resulting in head injuries to Bartholomeu which ultimately resulted in his death. The fact that the police had investigated into the matter and, thereafter, initiated necessary charge-sheet against the driver is not in dispute. In this background, there are sufficient materials on record to entertain and grant the application u/s 140 filed by the appellants. 8. Undisputedly, what is relevant for the grant of compensation u/s 140 of the said Act is the prima facie evidence regarding the involvement of the concerned vehicle in the accident and resulting injury to the victim of the accident. 9. Merely because the witnesses did not see the actual accident taking place whereby the deceased was knocked down by the van that would not justify ignoring the other evidence on record. Though the witnesses had not seen the actual accident of dash by the vehicle to the deceased, the testimonies of Lourenca Monteiro and Franscina Vaz disclose that both the witnesses had been at the site at the relevant time and had seen the mail van passing by the side of the pick-up immediately after the noise of dash by the vehicle. Considering the materials on record, the said evidence would be sufficient for the purpose of decision in the matter of application u/s 140 of the said Act. 10. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed and set aside. The application of the appellants is allowed. The respondents shall deposit the amount of Rs. 25,000 within six weeks from today in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Margao in Claim Petition No. 26 of 1994. No order as to costs.