1. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 07.05.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 426 of 1993 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 85,789/- as compensation with interest at 12% per annum.
3. It is the case of the appellant that on 17.09.1992 while the claimant was driving a truck, a luxury bus driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner dashed with the truck as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries on various parts of the body. The claimant therefore filed claim petition to the tune of Rs. 1,30,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Mr.
Rawal, 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 higher amount under various heads. He submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the injuries sustained by the claimant and the damages to the vehicle.
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 claimant sustained injuries as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the original opponent no. 1. The Tribunal has granted Rs. 10000/- towards the injuries sustained by the claimant. The Tribunal also assessed the damages to the vehicle and awarded Rs. 91789/- under the said head. Nothing is pointed out before this Court to take a contrary view. The Tribunal has finally considered the policy which stated that the insurance company's liability was limited to the extent of Rs. 6000/- and thereby the liability of the insurance company was fixed at Rs. 6000/-. The remaining amount of compensation was ordered to be paid by the remaining opponents. 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