1. This is an appeal, whereby the appellant has challenged the judgment and award of the M.A.C.T.(Auxi.), Mehsana, dated 24.06.2010, whereby the tribunal awarded Rs.4,21,000/- along with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
On account of a vehicular accident, which took place on 31.10.2001, the original claimant- respondent No.1, herein, received severe bodily injuries. He, therefore, filed the aforesaid claim petition, wherein the tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has raised various contentions. He submitted that the tribunal erred in passing the impugned judgment and award. The tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. The amount awarded by the tribunal is highly exaggerated. The tribunal erred in exonerating the insurance company, and therefore, he has prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 has opposed the appeal and has prayed to dismiss the same, as being without merit. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. As regards the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants with regard to the liability, amount awarded by the tribunal towards compensation etc. are concerned, the tribunal has elaborately discussed the evidence in detail, more particularly, the evidence in the form of FIR(Mark-24/1), Panchnama(Exhibit-34) etc., which support the case put forward by the original claimants. I have also gone through the impugned order and I find that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and appropriate and in consonance with the evidence on record and the law on the subject. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the conclusion arrived at by the tribunal, and hence, I find no reason to entertain the present appeal.
6. Insofar as the aspect of exoneration of respondent No.3-Insurance Company is concerned, it is an admitted position that the vehicle in question was a goods vehicle, which is not meant to carry passengers. Apart from that the FIR with regard to the alleged accident was also lodged belatedly, for which no plausible explanation is coming on record. Moreover, the Panchnama(Exhibit-34) of the scene of offence reveals that offending auto-rickshaw was not found on the spot, while the panchnama was being drawn. It may also be noted that no goods were found at the place of accident, this also falsifies the case of the original claimant that he was travelling in the auto-rickshaw with the goods. Thus, there being breach of the policy conditions, the tribunal has rightly held that the insurance company cannot be held liable to satisfy the claim. Hence, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant with regard to exoneration of insurance company requires rejection.
7. In the result, the appeal fails and is DISMISSED, accordingly. No order as to costs.
Since, the first appeal is disposed of, civil application shall not survive and it stands DISPOSED OF, accordingly.
(K.S. JHAVERI,J.) Umesh/