KANUBHAI GANGARAMBHAI PAREKH Vs. DELETED & 4

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of a claimant in a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act and is directed against an award dated 28th February 2007 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Fast Track Court No.6, Ahmedabad in MAC Petition No.1078 of 1997 by which the Tribunal disposed of the application by awarding a sum of Rs.77,550/ - to the claimant with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realisation. Since two different vehicles were found to be responsible for the accident, the learned Tribunal below directed the opponent Nos.4 and 5 to pay 20% and the opponent Nos.1, 2 and 3 to pay 80% of the amount, depending upon the negligence of the two vehicles. Being dissatisfied, the claimant has come up with the present appeal.

(2.) IT appears from record that on 18th April 1997 while the claimant was going to Dakor with his friend in jeep No.GJ -9B -874, a truck bearing registration No.GJ -17X -2889 dashed with the jeep, as a result, the claimant sustained injuries on his hand. He was admitted to Shri Rang Hospital where he was treated for 20 days. Surgical operation was made and a rod was inserted in his injured hand. According to the claimant, due to such injuries, he became disabled to the extent of 29%. The appellant initially claimed a sum of Rs.70,000/ -, which was, subsequently, enhanced to Rs.1,25,000/ - by way of an amendment.

(3.) THE insurance companies of both the vehicles contested the proceeding thereby opposing the claim of the victim. There is, however, no dispute as regards the involvement of the two vehicles and the fact that both were covered by a valid insurance at the time of accident. The insurance companies disputed the quantum claimed by the appellant. The Tribunal below, on consideration of the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the claimant failed to prove that he was an auto -rickshaw driver, as claimed, because he could not produce the driving licence for the relevant period. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that although the driving licence, which was valid upto 1987 was produced, there was no evidence to show that there was any valid licence ten years thereafter, at the time of accident. In such circumstances, the Tribunal treated the monthly income of the victim to be Rs.1500/ -. On the basis of the age of the victim, which was 45 years at the relevant point of time, the Tribunal decided to apply the multiplier of 13 and treated the disability to be 20%, although the Doctor, who was also examined certified it to be 29%. The ultimate conclusion of the Tribunal regarding amount of compensation was as follows : -