NAI KANTILAL SHANKERLAL Vs. PANCHAL PUSHPABEN B DECEASED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The owner and the driver of the truck, being aggrieved by the award dated 30th August, 1980 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main] Banaskantha at Palanpur in MAC Petition No. 15 of 1979, have filed this appeal.

(2.) The short facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that on the fateful day, the deceased, husband of the claimant no.1 had started from Manpura on a motorcycle and went to Palanpur, but on the way, he was hit by the truck bearing registration no. MRL 2225. He died as a result of the injuries, therefore, a claim seeking compensation of Rs.2,37,000/- was filed by the widow and the two minor children. The driver and the owner appeared before the Tribunal and submitted that their truck was not involved in the accident. On the fateful day, the driver had gone to some other place and the truck was not involved in the accident. As the parties joined the issue, the learned Tribunal allowed the parties to lead evidence. After recoding the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 86,500/- but restricted the liability of the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- and directed that the balance amount be paid by the present appellants. The appellants are now before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants, after taking me through the evidence and the findings recorded by the Tribunal submitted that statement of A.W. 1 Pushpaben in relation to the details of the truck being hearse, could not be relied upon, because Shantilal Nai who gave information about the truck to Pushpaben was not examined before the Tribunal. He also submitted that the statement of A.W. 4 Parbatji Ratuji and A.W.5 Virchandbhai Panabhai [Vira Panna] are not reliable. He submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, therefore, the Claim Petition ought to have been dismissed.