1. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 22.04.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Nadiad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 116 of 1996 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 1,82,750/- as compensation with interest at 12% per annum.
3. It is the case of the appellant that while Shri Bhikhabhai Patel was riding as a pillion rider on a scooter, at that time a matador being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner hit the scooter as a result of which he expired. The legal heirs of the deceased therefore filed claim petition to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Mr.
Pradeep, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the entire facts of the case and evidence on record and thereby erred in awarding adequate amount under various heads. He submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the contributory negligence of the scooterist.
5. As a result of hearing and perusal of records, this court is of the view that considering the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the pillion rider expired as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the original opponent no. 1. The Tribunal assessed the contributory negligence on the part of the scooterist at 25% looking to the fact that the documentary evidence also point towards negligence of the scooterist. The truck being a heavy vehicle is assessed with 75% contributory negligence. Nothing is pointed out before this Court to take a contrary view. The Tribunal has finally quantified the amount of compensation at Rs. 1,82,750/-. Considering the age of the deceased coupled with the documentary evidence, the multiplier adopted and amount awarded under various heads is just and proper. This court is in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal and therefore do not see any reason for causing interference.
6. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top