UNION OF INDIA Vs. MANJIBHAI PITAMBARBHAI KANJARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 03.11.1995 involving the vehicle (Matador) bearing registration No. GRP 4470 and in which minor Jayantilal Manjibhai Kanjaria had expired, the heirs and legal representatives of deceased preferred claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.105/1996 u/s. 166 of the M.V. Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamnagar. The said claim petition was allowed in part, by judgment and award dated 22.12.2003, whereby, the original claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.1,57,000/ - along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs. Against the said award, the present appeal has been preferred.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants mainly argued on the aspect of contributory negligence and the amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency. It has been submitted that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and has also not followed the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, 2009 6 SCC 121. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 supported the impugned award and submitted that the compensation awarded is just and appropriate and therefore, this Court may reject the present appeal.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the respective parties. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent no.3. After appreciating the evidence on record, particularly, the FIR and panchnama of the scene of accident and the oral evidence of the complainant, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the sole negligence of the Car driver. In my opinion, the Tribunal has rightly reached the above conclusion since the accident took place on a Highway during heavy traffic and when at a nearby place a public function was in progress. The Tribunal considered the fact that the victim was a minor boy and since it was a busy period, the driver ought to have taken necessary care and caution. Hence, the finding regarding negligence recorded by the Tribunal is just and appropriate.