LAWS(GJH)-2022-4-617

MANOJKUMAR PUNJABHAI PATEL Vs. VARIYA USMANBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI

Decided On April 18, 2022
Manojkumar Punjabhai Patel Appellant
V/S
Variya Usmanbhai Ibrahimbhai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are the original claimants, who have filed the present appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dtd. 18/7/2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anand, by which Rs.2,08,800.00 with 7.5% interest is awarded in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 105 of 2008 and by further directing that respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are liable to pay the amount jointly and severally. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim against respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Therefore, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant as respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were exonerated from liability to pay the amount of compensation.

(2.) The brief facts are as such that, on 18/7/2008 at about 4 p.m., deceased Manojkumar Punjabhai was returning from village Matel after completing Darshan by driving Maruti Alto car bearing registration No. GJ -23-A- 5785. When the deceased reached at Limdi-Bagodara four track road, near Devpura Board at that point of time, one tractor bearing registration No. GJ-1-K-8694 was going ahead of the deceased and that the driver of the tractor - respondent No.1 has applied sudden brakes and the accident has occurred. Due to accident, the deceased sustained serious bodily injuries and has succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Therefore, the claimants have preferred a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anand and prayed Rs.4,84,700.00 as compensation.

(3.) The Tribunal has issued summons to the opponents . Opponent Nos. 1 & 3 have filed their reply at Exh.25 in which they have denied the facts stating in para 17 of the claim petition and has also disputed that the accident has occurred due to negligence of deceased. Therefore, they have prayed to reject the claim petition against opponent Nos. 1 & 3. The opponent No. 5 has filed its reply at Exh. 20 and denied all the averments made in the petition. It is the contention raised by the Insurance Company-The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd that Alto car bearing registration No. GJ-23-A-5785 was duly insured with opponent No.5 in the name of Arvind Bhai B. Patel and also the policy was in existence i.e. from 9/3/2008 to 8/3/2009. The claim petition was filed under the provisions of Sec. 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thereafter, the Tribunal has framed the issues for determination and has proceeded further by recording oral evidence of present appellant No.1 - widow of Manoj Bhai, who has filed affidavit vide Exh. 28 and stated on oath that the accident has occurred as stated above and diseased Manoj Bhai received injuries due to accident. She has further stated that at that time, her husband Manoj Bhai was driving Maruti Alto car, which is owned by opponent No. 4 and he was earning Rs.3300.00 p.m. Opponent No. 1 has filed affidavit at Exh. 35, in which he has stated that at the time of accident, deceased was driving the Maruti Alto car and applicant has also produced on record the driving license, Insurance policy as well as Panchnama of the scene of accident of the deceased Manoj Bhai. After considering the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence, the Tribunal has calculated the compensation to the tune of Rs.4,17,500.00 as indicated in para 14 of the impugned judgment. The Tribunal has found that contributory negligence to the extent of 50% came on the shoulder of driver of Maruti Alto car, therefore, 50% amount from the total awarded compensation is required to be deducted. The Tribunal also found that claim petition against the owner and the Insurance Company i.e. opponent Nos. 4 & 5 of offending vehicle Maruti car, is required to be dismissed. Therefore, Tribunal has awarded ultimately Rs.2,08,750.00 with 7.5% p.a interest from the date of application and directed that respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are required to pay the said amount of compensation to the claimant. Respondent No. 3 is also exonerated from its liability. Therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above direction, the present appeal is filed by the claimants to get the appropriate relief.