PRAKASH MOHANLAL CHOPDA Vs. YALAJI RAHUJI GHULE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals arise out of a common accident. Three appeals are preferred as against decisions in three claim petitions filed by the claimants before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Ahmednagar i. e. , m. A. C. T. Nos. 105/86, 152/86 and 121/86. All three appeals can be heard and disposed of together because common issue is raised by the appellant, who is owner of one of the vehicles, involved in the accident, in all three appeals.

(2.) THE accident in question took place on 6th of May, 1986 at about 1. 00 p. m. near mile stone No. 131, about 6 Kms. from Rahuri towards Ahmednagar side on Manmad - Ahmednagar road. Jeep No. MHV 8110 is the vehicle owned by present appellant and which was not insured at the material time. It was being driven by respondent Parshuram Todmal at the material time. The other vehicle involved in the accident was goods truck No. MJF 6634 owned by respondent gurudayalsingh and driven by deceased respondent Shaikh Muhammad at the material time. The truck was insured with respondent, The New India Insurance company, at the material time. Although drivers of both the vehicles have accused each other to be responsible for the accident by rash and negligent driving, admittedly, accident took place in somewhat following manner. The jeep was proceeding ahead. Dayanand Ramchandra Gandhe, Chandrabhagabai Harde, Dnyandeo Pawar and 2-3 others were the passengers in the jeep. Dayanand, Ramchandra and chadrabhagabai lost their lives in the accident. Dnyandeo has survived and is examined as eye witness by all the claimants in all three petitions. In fact, all claims are decided by recording common evidence, by the Tribunal. It is said that the truck was running in the same direction as the jeep i. e. , towards Ahmednagar. At the location of accident, jeep had halted so that some passengers can alight. The jeep was knocked by the truck from backside, allegedly with full force while in full speed. As the panchanama of scene of occurrence shows, after the accident both the vehicles have gone outside the road beyond right edge (wrong side for the vehicles) and they are lying in a ditch at a distance of about 40 ft. from the edge of the road.

(3.) WHILE granting all claim petitions for compensation towards death, the tribunal has held both the vehicles liable for rashness and negligence and the percentage of liability is fixed as 40 per cent upon the jeep and 60 per cent upon the truck. The respective owners are directed to deposit the amount of total compensation in that proportion. Appellant, in all three matters, who is owner of the jeep, is aggrieved by this finding of the Tribunal and consequent liability imposed upon his shoulders. Hence, only point that arises for consideration in all three appeals is :