1. By way of this appeal, the present appellant has challenged the judgement and award dated 21.02.2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Main), Kheda at Nadiad, in M.A.C.P. No.1777 of 1996, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that one Chandubhai Rathod had boarded in truck No.GJ-7-6317 with vegetables at Sevaliya for going to village Thasra. The Truck was being driven by opponent no.1 in excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner, due to which he lost control over the truck while negotiating a turn and in the result the truck turned turtle on the road side and the deceased died in the said accident. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.1777 of 1996 before the Tribunal for compensation.
2. The learned tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal has not properly considered the evidence produced on record. He further submitted that in another Motor Accident Claim Petition being M.A.C.P. Nos.1909 of 1996 and M.A.C.P. No.1910 of 1996 preferred before the same Tribunal and before the same Judge wherein the Tribunal vide order dated 01.10.2005 has taken the view that the deceased was travelling alongwith goods in the goods vehicle and the Insurance Company was held liable to satisfy the award, whereas the very same Tribunal vide order dated 21.02.2005 taken the different view in the
Tribunal has not held the Insurance Company liable to satisfy the award. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that the principle of parity would also apply to this case also as both the matters were heard and decided before the same Tribunal and the same judge.
as the judgement and award of the tribunal. In my view, in the present matter the principle of parity would apply because the hearing of the matters completed before the same Judge of the same Tribunal. The Tribunal has not held the Insurance Company liable to satisfy the award. I am of the opinion that the Insurance Company is required to be held liable to satisfy the award and I hold the Insurance Company liable to satisfy the award.
5. The appeal is allowed. Direct Service permitted.
mehul (K.S.JHAVERI,J.)