NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAJEEN RAFIQAHMED VOHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Auxiliary), Kheda Nadiad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1055 of 2005, by which the Tribunal has awarded Rs.65,200.00 with 7.5% interest p.a. from the date of claim petition.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are such that, on 11/1/2005 claimant - Rajeen Rafiqahmed Vohra was travelling on Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration number GJ-7-AK-6078, as pillion rider and the same was being driven by present opponent No.2 in the rash and negligent manner and excessive speed. When they reached near the place of accident, at that point of time, one Tempo bearing registration No. GJ-15- X-1352, which was driven by present opponent No.4 rashly and negligently and in excessive speed, dashed with the Hero Honda motorcycle. Due to said accident, original claimant has sustained serious injuries including fracture. Therefore, the claim petition is preferred to get the compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. Vrushank Mehta for learned Advocate Mr. Dakshesh Mehta appearing for the Insurance Company has submitted that the negligence of the Tempo driver is required to be held as 100% as charge-sheet is filed against the driver of tempo but the Tribunal has not considered that aspect. He has submitted that the negligence attributed to the driver of motorcycle is 20% though it is categorically mentioned in the FIR at Exh. 57, Panchnama at Exh. 52 and charge-sheet at Exh. 60 that he is more negligent. He has further drawn attention that Insurance Company of the Tempo was not joined as party, therefore, it may be presumed that tempo might be uninsured on the date of accident. He has further submitted that disability, which is considered by the Tribunal to the tune of 10% body as a whole is also erroneous, therefore, he prays that present appeal is required to be allowed as the Tribunal has committed material errors in considering the documentary evidence available on record while considering the aspect of negligence.