RAMBHABEN RATNABHAI Vs. BRAHMIN NARANBHAI RAGHUBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the original claimants. They have filed this appeal for seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Special], Rajkot District at Gondal dated 01/02/1989 made in M.A.C. Petition No. 155/1987. The appellants have been awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/ - together with interest at the rate of 9% p a from the date of application till the deposit of the amount in the Tribunal. It appears that the Tribunal has missed to award costs to the appellants.

(2.) THE appellants have preferred this claim petition for obtaining compensation for the death of one Ratnabhai Premjibhai who died in a vehicular accident which occurred on 26/2/1985 at about 12.00 noon in the Sim of Charan Samadhiyala village. On that day deceased was sitting as a pillion rider on motor bike and Laxmichand Virsinh was driving the motor bike, who also died in the said accident and they were going from Bordi Samadhiyala to Thana Galol. At that time a truck bearing registration No. GAP 4962 came from the opposite direction, it dashed against the motor bike and as a result of the same, deceased Ratnabhai sustained serious injuries; whereas Laxmichand died on the spot. Ratnabhai was removed to Civil Hospital at Jetpur where he died during treatment. The appellants, therefore, claimed Rs.1 lac by way of compensation. The claim was resisted by original opponents who are the present respondents, who appeared to have filed joint written statement at Exh. 12 as reflected from the narration of facts made by the Tribunal. They have denied the averments made in the petition. However, it is further averred that respondent no. 3 Insurance Company had insured vehicle bearing registration No. GTP 4962 and not vehicle bearing registration No. GAP 4962 and, therefore, it was not the liability of the insurance company to satisfy the award. In the alternative it was pleaded that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor bike and opponent no. 1 was not responsible for the accident.

(3.) MR . Mukesh Dave, learned advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in deducting 20% from the amount assessed by it on the ground that the driver of the motor bike was negligent to the extent of 20%. He has further submitted that the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is on lower side.