DHARMADHIKARI, J. - (1.) AS in both these appeals common questions of law and fact were involved, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) IT is an admitted position that an accident took place on 6th of June 1969 by about 8 45 p.m. In the said accident Patri Venkata Ramanayya lost his life and the driver of the car Shri P.K. Reddy also received injuries. The dependants of late Ramanayya filed a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal for Greater Bombay claiming an amount of Rs. 4 lacs as compensation. Shri Reddy the driver of the car also claimed compensation for the injuries received by him. After appreciating all the evidence on record the learned Member of the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs. 1,53.000/- as compensation to the dependants of late Ramanayya and a sum of Rs. 3,200/- to Shri P.K. Reddy together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realisation. It is these awards which are challenged in the present two first appeals. It was the case of the claimants that a lorry bearing No. 6351 collided with the car driven by Reddy when Ramanayya was silting on the rear seat of the car. A lorry bearing No. BYR-6454 had stopped ahead of the offending lorry before entering the Sion Railway Yard. The driver of the offending lorry Shri Pande disregarding all traffic rules and carelessly and negligently drove his lorry and dashed against the motor car smashing its right side. The impact was so great that the pole in-between the two doors on the right side of the said motor car was also smashed and the left rear door was forced open and deceased was thrown out of the car and the deceased received fatal injuries. Thus according to the claimants the accident took place by reason of the negligence on the part of Shri Pande the driver of the lorry No. BMR 5357 and hence they are entitled to claim compensation.
(3.) THE averments made by the claimants in the application were denied by the opponents. It was contended by the opposite party No. 2 that he was not driving the lorry at an excessive speed rashly and recklessly, and/or negligently. According to him the accident took place as the motor car driver had not taken due care and caution while driving the car. The opposite party No. 2 also contended that because of the slippery condition of the road and inspite of due care the motor car collided into the motor lorry and therefore accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the motor car driver. In support of their respective cases the parties examined their witnesses. After appreciating all the evidence on record the learned Member of the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver Pande drove his lorry rashly and negligently and, therefore accident took place because of his rash and negligent driving alone. The learned Member further held that the claimants had proved their claim for compensation and hence the Tribunal passed an award granting the compensation which is the subject matter of these appeals.;