GEETA RAO Vs. SHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal preferred under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the Award dated 29th July, 1983 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhar in Claim Case No. 67 of 1981.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the truck bearing registration No. CPE 9018 was owned by the respondent No. 2 Dilipkumar. At the relevant time, it was being driven by the respondent No. 1. The vehicle was registered with the respondent No. 4, the National Insurance Co., Indore. The matador bearing registration No. CPB 8901 was owned by the respondent No. 3 Khalil Mohd. and at the relevant time, it was being driven by Iqbal Mohd. (since deceased). On 22.11.1980, the matador was proceeding from Indore towards Maheshwar while at about the same time the truck noted above, was coming towards Indore. These vehicles collided on 22.12.1980 at 11.45 a.m. near village, Dhamnod. The driver of the matador died on account of the injuries sustained by him in this accident. The employees of the Godrej Company, Indore had hired the matador and were going on picnic from Indore to Maheshwar. In this accident, Sushant Chaterjee, Smt. Shailaja Sule were killed, while the appellant Smt. Geeta Rao and three ors. (Pradip Kotkar, Kailash Thakur and Devdas) were injured. These three injured persons also preferred claim petition. The respondents denied their liability and attributed negligence, to the driver of the matador. On evaluation of the evidence, the Tribunal found that it was a case of composite negligence and that there was rashness and negligence on the part of both the drivers of these vehicles. The Tribunal awarded the amount of Rs. 1,500/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of application presented on 6.5.1981 till realisation of the amount.

(3.) MR . Bagadia submitted that the amount awarded is too low and deserves to be suitably modified. He also urged that the rate of interest is also low and merited to be increased. Mr. Khan, on the other hand, submitted that the amount of compensation is just and proper and does not call for any interference. As regards the interest, Mr. Khan submitted that there is no prayed contained in the memo of appeal and according to him, the interest allowed is quite reasonable.