A.P.LAVANDE, J. - (1.) THE appellant who was the claimant in Claim Petition No. 211 /92 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao, challenges the judgment and award dated 6th December, 1999, dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The appellant shall hereinafter be referred to as "the claimant".
(2.) BRIEFLY , the case of the claimant is that on 16th January, 1992, at about 4.00 p.m. at Borimol on the Curchorem-Quepem Road, respondent No. 1 drove a two wheeler bearing registration No. GDH 7962 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter bearing No. GA-02-B-2732 driven by the claimant. As a result of the clash the claimant was thrown off the road and he suffered injuries, namely fracture of the right hand thumb and injuries to the shoulder and head. The petition was contested by respondent No. 2. According to respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 1 was driving the scooter at a moderate speed with his wife as pillion rider from Margao to Sanvordem and at Borimol respondent No. 1 saw a scooter with two pillion riders coming in the opposite direction. The said scooter went on the wrong side in a high speed. It was further the case of respondent No. 2 that the said scooter was not driven by respondent No. 1, but by one Harischandra Malvonkar and that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the claimant himself. On the basis of the pleadings the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether on 16.1.92, at about 4.00 p.m., at Borimol, near house of Ramchandra Dukle, on Curchorem-Quepem Road, respondent No. 1 drove scooter No. GDH 7962 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against scooter No. GA-02/B-2732, driven by the applicant, as a result of which the applicant was thrown off the road and suffered injuries. O.P.C. 2. Whether the applicant was 1 years old, (sic) was earning Rs. 1.500/ and is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. l.00000/-. O.P.C. Whether scooter No. GA-02/B-2732, was being driven by Harischandra Malvankar, who did not possess driving licence and three persons were travelling on the said scooter due to which respondents are not liable to pay any compensation. O.P.R. 3. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the evidence led by the claimant held that the claimant had failed to prove that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1. The Claims Tribunal also held that the scooter driven by respondent No. 1 had dashed against the scooter driven by the said Harischandra after the claimant and the two pillion riders had fallen on the road and. as such, the injuries were not caused to the claimant on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. The Claims Tribunal held that Harischandra was driving the scooter and not the claimant, based on the findings given in Claim Petition No. 207/92 filed by the wife of respondent No. 1.
(3.) HAVING regard to the pleadings and the judgment and award given by the Claims Tribunal, the following points arise for determination in the Appeal :- 1. Whether the respondent No. 1 drove the scooter in a rash and negligent manner causing injuries to the appellant? 2. If yes, to what compensation the claimant is entitled? ;