AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sandeep N. Bhatt, J
The present appeal is filed by the appellant – Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 30.12.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Aux.) Surat in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1004 of 1999, by which, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding Rs.9,67,000/- with 7.5% p.a. interest to be paid to claimant/s, by holding opponents liable, jointly and severally.
The facts of the present appeal are as under :
2.1 The claimants filed the claim petition stating that on 13.10.1999 at 12.30 hours, the deceased was going on his scooter no.GJ.5AD.516 on ring road, chimney tekra, opp.power house, Salabatpura and when he was going from Sahara darwaja to Udhna darwaja, the truck of the ownership of opponent no.2 and driven by opponent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the deceased from the back side and caused the accident, in which the deceased died. Therefore, the claimants filed the claim petition for compensation.
2.2 The notices were served to the opponents. The opponent no.3-insurance company has filed its written statement. The issues were framed by the Tribunal. Oral as well as documentary evidence were led before the Tribunal. After hearing the submissions made by the rival parties, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition(s) and awarded compensation as noted above.
2.3 Hence, the insurance company has filed the present appeal before this Court.
Learned advocate for the appellant – Insurance Company has assailed the impugned judgment and award on the point of negligence and submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding the truck negligent to the extent of 100%, however, the negligence should be apportioned at 50%-50% between the scooterist-deceased and the truck driver. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has also erred in awarding the compensation on a higher side by considering the income of the deceased on a much higher side. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal is required to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award needs to be modified.
Per contra, learned advocate for the respondents/claimants has submitted that the impugned judgment and award is just and proper and is not required to be interfered with. He submitted that the deceased was going on his side on scooter and the truck dashed with him from behind, which is evident from the complaint and the panchanama of scene. Therefore, the negligence of the truck driver is to the extent of 100%, which the learned Tribunal has rightly held and there is no negligence on the part of the scooterist.
With regard to the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants, the learned advocate for the claimants has submitted that the income of the deceased is assessed based on the deposition of the witness who was his co-worker, examined by the claimants in support of their case for income of the deceased. He, therefore, submitted that there is nothing to the contrary coming on the record to assess the income at a lower rate. The learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation after considering the amount under various heads of funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of dependency, multiplier etc. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss this appeal.
I have considered the submissions made by the respective parties. I have perused the record and proceedings. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. I have also considered the pleadings of the parties before the Tribunal. It transpires from the documentary evidence produced on the record, more particularly, the panchanama of scene of offence that the deceased was dashed by the truck from behind and the driver of the truck ran away from the place of incident; that the work of overbridge is in progress due to which there is single lane, and the wheel of the truck ran over the head of the deceased and therefore the deceased died. There is nothing on the record and the driver did not step into the witness box to controvert the same and the insurance company has also not put any evidence to support its say that the deceased was also negligent for the accident. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has not erred in coming to the conclusion on the point of negligence.
On the point of quantum, the deposition of the co-worker is produced before the learned Tribunal and considering the same and other documentary evidence produced on the record, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.7500/-. The compensation awarded under other heads is also just and proper, considering the various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
It is noteworthy to mention that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which gives paramount importance to the concept of `just and fair’ compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the concept of `just compensation’ which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavour should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the claimants.
In view of above ,the following order is passed.
9.1 The present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
9.2 The amount lying with the Tribunal and/or in the FDR, pursuant to the order of this Court if any, shall be disbursed to the claimant, along with accrued interest thereon if any, by account payee cheque, after proper verification and after following due procedure, within a period of six weeks from today.
9.3 Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.