LAWS(GJH)-2000-8-1

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRITAMSINGH CHANNASINGH

Decided On August 17, 2000
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Appellant
V/S
Pritamsingh Channansingh And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals, under Sec. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, at the instance of the appellant, original opponent No. 3, Insurer, are against the common judgment and awards passed in M.A.C.P. Nos. 448 of 1983 and 449 of 1982 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Panchmahals, Godhra, on 10-6-1983.

(2.) First Appeal No. 26 of 1984 has arisen out of M.A.C.P. No. 448 of 1982 filed by the parents of deceased Surendrasinh claiming an amount of Rs. 1,16,000/-, wherein, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 71,200/- with interest and cost and First Appeal No. 27 of 1984 has arisen out of M.A.C.P. No. 449 of 1982 filed by mother of deceased Ajmalsingh, wherein, the award came to be passed for Rs. 23.900/- against the claim of Rs. 35,800/-. Since both these appeals arise out of common judgment in respect of same accident, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) An unfortunate road accident took place, on 24-3-1992 at about 9.00 p.m. at Kadana Dam site involving a motor truck No. GTD 3943 driven by one, Ratansinh and owned by one firm Manibhai & Brothers and insured with New India Insurance Company, appellant in both the appeals. On account of the accident, two persons lost their lives. In the first petition, parents of deceased Surendrasingh and in the second petition mother of deceased Ajmalsingh claimed the aforesaid amount of compensation on the ground that the driver of the truck Ratansingh was rash and negligent and was responsible for the accident. The opponents in the claim petitions contested the claims challenging the averments made in the petitions. They contended that the driver of the truck was not rash and negligent and responsible for the accident, but the truck all of a sudden, fell and the driver informed the labourers travelling in the truck to jump down from the truck in order to save their lives. All the persons in the truck, except deceased persons listened to the request of the driver. The deceased persons did not listen to the request, and therefore, they suffered and paid the penalty on account of their carelessness.