1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged judgement and award dated 16.04.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) & Presiding Officer, 6th Fast Track Court, Rajkot in MACP No. 809 of 2006.
2. Brief facts of the case are that:
On 16.06.2006, one Atul@ Hitesh Babubhai Sorathiya (original petitioner of MACP No. 97 of 2007), was driving the Motor Cycle No. GJ-3AQ-4010 and Haresh @ Kalu Vashrambhai Parsana and deceased Mahesh Veljibhai Mundiya were pillion rider on the said motor cycle. When they reached near Rajkot-Gondal National Highway, Nr. Shri Ram Industries, at about 9.00 O'clock, one Truck bearing No. GJ-11U-9360 came with excessive speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed with their motor cycle. As a result, Mahesh Veljibhai Mundia and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Mahesh Veljibhai succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was aged about 19 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 36,000/- per annum by way of working in Krishna Electric Shop.
The heirs and legal representatives of the deceased have filed MACP No. 809 of 2006 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) & Presiding Officer, 6th Fast Track Court, Rajkot for getting compensation of Rs. 4,60,500/- from the original opponents Nos. 1 and 5.
The tribunal, vide judgement and award dated 16.04.2009, ordered the original opponents Nos. 1 to 5 to pay Rs. 2,28,500/- jointly and severally to the petitioners with running interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realization and proportionate cost.
Being aggrieved by the said order, present appellant, original opponent No.5 preferred the said appeal.
3. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has erred in not apportioning the liability between the two vehicles. He further stated that the Tribunal did have jurisdiction to determine the inter se negligence between two drivers where two vehicles were involved and apportion the liability accordingly, as per “No fault liability” under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. v. Sinitha and others, 2011 (13) SCALE 84.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Considering the facts of the case and in view of the principle laid down in Sinitha's case (supra), the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for consideration afresh in light of the above judgment. Accordingly, the impugned judgement and award dated 16.04.2009 is quashed and set aside. Both the sides shall be at liberty to adduce evidence. The amount lying with the Tribunal shall be invested in FDR and interest accumulated thereon shall not be disbursed, pending final disposal of the claim petition. The entire amount with interest accrued thereon shall be paid to the party who succeeds in the claim petition, after giving necessary set-off of the amount that might have already been received by the original claimants. The Tribunal shall decide the claim petition within two years from the date of receipt of writ of this order. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
JYOTI [K.S.JHAVERI, J.]