1. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and award dated 28.04.1992 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No.517/1986 & 518/1986 whereby, both the claim petitions were partly allowed and in M.A.C.P. No.517/1986 the respondents, original claimants, were awarded total compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of application till its realization and proportionate costs; whereas, in M.A.C.P. the respondents, original claimants, were awarded total compensation of Rs.3,05,000/- along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of application till its realization and proportionate costs.
2. The facts in brief are that on 06.01.1986 at about 1030 hrs. Chandubhai Govindbhai and his son Sureshbhai Chandubhai were going towards Karjan from Vadodara on the Scooter bearing registration No. GAA 4024. Sureshbhai Chandubhai was driving the Scooter and Chandubhai Govindbhai was a pillion rider. When they reached near a Village named Kashipura, a Tanker bearing registration No. GTE 7875, driven by original opponent no.1, belonging to appellant no.2 and insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, came from the opposite direction and dashed the Scooter. As a result thereof, both Chandubhai Govindbhai and his son Sureshbhai Chandubhai sustained severe bodily injuries and ultimately, died during the course of treatment. Their legal heirs filed the claim petitions before the Tribunal, which came to be partly allowed, by way of the common impugned award. Being aggrieved by the awards, the appellants have preferred the present appeals.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the Tribunal has seriously erred in adjudicating the issue of negligence. It is submitted that the Scooterist was equally responsible for the accident. It has been further contended that the Tribunal has also erred in assessing the quantum of compensation since no cogent evidence was produced by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned award and submitted that the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective, has
4. From the panchnama of the place of accident Exhibit-55, it appears that the width of the road was 22 Ft. and that at the relevant point of time, the Scooterist attempted to take a right turn in spite of the fact that the heavy vehcile – Tanker was coming from the opposite direction. The brake marks are evident up to a distance of 45 Ft. It also appears that the Tanker was being driven at a moderate speed at the relevant time. Considering the panchnama on record, it appears that the accident could have been averted if the Scooterist had not taken right turn in spite of the fact that a heavy vehicle was coming from the opposite direction. The driver of the Tanker could have also avoided the accident if he had applied the brakes at the relevant point of time since he was driving a heavy vehicle. Hence, I find both the Tanker and the Scooter to be negligent to the extent of 60 : 40 for the accident and I, accordingly, hold the same. Accordingly, the original claimants in both M.A.C.P. No.517/1986 & 518/1986 shall be entitled for 60% of the total amount of compensation, which comes to Rs.1,23,000/- and Rs.1,83,000/- respectively.
5. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record. I do not find any reasons to disturb the award so far as the amount of compensation awarded is concerned. However, so far as the rate of interest is concerned, the same is on the higher side and if the rate of interest is fixed at 12% per annum, the same would meet with the ends of justice.
6. For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals are partly allowed. The common impugned award is modified to the extent that the original claimants in M.A.C.P. No.517/1986 & 518/1986 shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,23,000/- and Rs.1,83,000/- respectively along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization and proportionate costs. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*