(1.) NO one has remained present for the appellants, except learned advocate Mr.K.K.Nair and no one has remained present for the respondents, except learned advocate Mr.Sunil B. Parikh, in any of the appeals which were heard together and which are disposed by this common judgment.
(2.) ALL the appeals under section 110 -D of the erstwhile Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, "the Act") have been preferred from the common judgment and orders dated 7.12.1984 of MACT, Himatnagar. The motor vehicle accident had happened on 28.4.1982 at 06.45 p.m. near village Tajpur -Kui on Himatnagar -Ahmedabad Road when fiat car bearing No.MXZ 6259 dashed with jeep car bearing No.GRC 1198 which was going ahead and which suddenly turned towards an approach road leading to a village. The first set of six appeals are filed jointly by the owner, driver and insurance company of the jeep on the basis that the driver of the jeep was not negligent and hence the liability cast upon them was not justified. The remaining appeals are filed by the original claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
(3.) IT was seen from perusal of record and discussion of relevant evidence in para 11 of the impugned judgment that it was admittedly dark at the time of accident and sudden turn of the jeep had caused the accident. It was also seen that the fiat car coming from behind could not be controlled by its driver presumably because of its excessive speed. Although controversy was raised about the driver of jeep having signalled his intention to turn, but, since it was dark and lights were not put on, the Tribunal had to infer that the accident was caused by negligence on the part of both the drivers and hence their liability was assessed in the ratio of 50 : 50. No exception could be taken to fixing of liability as above and no case was made out and no ground was canvassed to interfere with the quantum of compensation. Therefore, all the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.