ALIMIYA MAHMADMIYA BELIM Vs. GOPALBHAI JUTHABHAI SATHWARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals arise from common judgment and award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main], Mehsana dated 31/1/1990 in M.A.C. Petitions No. 722/1984 and 723/1984. So far as the Claim Petition No. 722/1984 is concerned, it is filed by the parents of the deceased for claiming compensation on account of death of their son; whereas Claim Petition No. 723/1984 has been filed for claiming damage caused to the property i.e., vehicle owned by the deceased Chandmiya.

(2.) THE accident in question took place on 28/6/1984 around 2.15 p m on Mehsana - Ahmedabad Highway near village called Ganeshpura. Deceased Chandmiya Belim, who owned Matador Truck bearing registration No. GTK 4321 was proceeding from Ahmedabad to Mehsana; whereas the other vehicle namely, Truck bearing registration No. GTW 3556 was proceeding from Mehsana to Ahmedabad. It is averred by the appellants that respondent no. 1, who drove the truck, was rash and negligent in driving and as a result of the same, the accident occurred. The son of the appellants Chandmiya received serious injuries and he was removed to the hospital, but subsequently died during treatment. His vehicle was also extensively damaged. In view of the same, the appellants preferred aforesaid petitions before the Tribunal. The appellants claimed a sum of Rs.72,000/ - for the death of their son; whereas in petition for damage to the vehicle, they claimed Rs.51,000/ -.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Jayraj Chauhan, learned advocate appearing with Mr. Mukund Desai for the appellants in both the appeals and Mr. VP Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent Insurance Company. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are served, but they are absent. According to Mr. Chauhan, the Tribunal has committed error in not properly appreciating the contents of panchnama. He has submitted that even by comparing the two documents, namely the panchnama and the photographs, it will be clearly seen that it was the truck driven by respondent no. 1 which had travelled extremely on wrong side and has caused accident. He has submitted that the finding of the Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence of the deceased is not supported by any of the documentary evidence. He has, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded full amount without holding the deceased liable of contributory negligence. Lastly, he has submitted that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on lower side even considering the respective aged of appellants no. 1 and 2. In his submission, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 12.