1. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 31.07.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Panchmahal at Godhra in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1602 of 1995 so far as the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,74,840/- as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum after holding the appellant 60% negligent and the original opponent no. 1 40% negligent.
3. The claimant had filed claim petition to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- in respect of the vehicular accident which occurred on 08.05.1995 while the claimant was travelling in an S.T bus bearing registration no. GJ-1-Z- 2834 driven by the original opponent no. 1 rashly and negligently. At that time a truck dashed with the rear portion of the bus as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Mr. Bukhari, 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 lesser amount after holding the appellant negligent to the extent of 20%. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have come to the conclusion that the bus driver is solely negligent in the accident and instead contributory negligence ought not to have assessed on the appellant.
5. Mr. Ashish Shah, learned advocate appearing for the respondent supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal is justified in assessing the contributory negligence which is in accordance with the evidence on record.
6. 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 bus driver to the extent of 40% and the claimant himself to the extent of 20% and the truck driver to the extent of 40%. The Tribunal has considered the panchnama in detail. The appellant inspite of being given warnings had taken out his hand from the bus and the accident took place. The driver of the bus is also liable considering the fact that the deposition given by him and the complaint have certain variations. Moreover it was his duty to see that his vehicle does not come quite close to any vehicle coming from the opposite direction. The injury certificate, corroborates with the say of the bus driver which lead the Tribunal to draw adverse inference against the appellant to the extent of 20%. Nothing is pointed out before this Court to take a contrary view. 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.
7. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//