NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. PARULBEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (' M.V. Act ', for short), the appellant - Insurance Company has assailed the judgment and award dated 29.4.2014 passed by the M.A.C. Tribunal, (Aux), Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P No. 288 of 2003 whereunder, it is directed to pay sum of 25% of compensation to respondent nos. 1 to 4 - original claimants.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to appeal as could be gathered from the impugned judgment and award are that :

(3.) Deceased Bankimbhai Nanalal Patel was returning home along with others on 22.1.2002 at about 7-30 PM by driving Maruti Car bearing registration No GJ-1-BP-5561 registered in the name of respondent no. 8 herein and insured with present appellant. When the car was passing on Highway near Bavla, truck bearing registration No. HR-47-A-6014 coming from opposite direction and dashed with Motorcar, as a result thereof, deceased Bankimbhai Nanalal Patel suffered serious injuries, so that he was taken to SAL Hospital, where he succumbed to injury. The truck which dashed with car is insured with respondent no. 7 herein and the respondent nos 1 to 4 being legal heirs of deceased, preferred claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to recover compensation of Rs.38,00,000/- from the appellant and respondent nos. 5 to 8. By impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal held the deceased contributory negligent to the extent of 25% and partly allowed the claim petition and held that claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.13,25,000/- with 9% interest. The respondent nos. 1 to 3, who were the driver, owner and Insurance Company of offending truck were held liable to pay 75% of the compensation to the claimants, while the appellant and respondent no. 8 were held jointly and severally to pay 25% to deceased, though was contributory negligent to the extent of 25%. The legal heirs are entitled to compensation from the owner i.e. respondent no. 8 as the deceased was presumed to be a paid driver for whom the comprehensive policy premium towards paid driver was accepted by the appellant. The insurance Company of the motorcar being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the fastening of the liability to the extent of payment of 25% of the compensation, has preferred present appeal.