1. Heard learned advocates for the appellant and perused the papers on record.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 21.09.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Godhra in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 2793 of 2003 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 1,78,700/- as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum.
3. It is the case of the appellant that on 14.02.2003 while Shri Kanabhai Makwana was travelling in a tractor trolley being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, the tractor turned turtle as a result of which Shri Makwana sustained injuries on various parts of the body and he succumbed to the same. The appellants being legal heirs and representatives of the deceased therefore filed claim petition to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Mr.
Sethna, 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 adequate amount under various heads. He submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased and the disability.
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 appellant sustained injuries as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the original opponent no. 1. The Tribunal has assessed the disability of the whole body at 40%. It is required to be noted that the parties had agreed before the Tribunal that the disability may be assessed at 40%. Therefore no infirmity can be said to have been committed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also assessed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 2000/-. Nothing is pointed out before this Court to take a contrary view. The Tribunal has finally quantified the amount of compensation at Rs. 178700/- to be paid by the original opponent no. 1 & 2. The Tribunal has observed that there being a breach of condition of policy for which the tractor was insured, the insurance company cannot be held liable. 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. Civil Application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top