1. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 16.10.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 360 of 1998 so far as the Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,14,000/- as compensation with interest at 10% per annum.
3. It is the case of the appellant that on 24.11.1997 while one Shri Surendrakumar Prajapati was riding his motorcycle, the original opponent no. 1 drove the S.T bus in a rash and negligent manner thereby hitting him as a result of which he died. The appellants being the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased therefore filed claim petition to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Ms.
Roopal Patel, 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. She submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income on higher side and the same is required to be reduced. She submitted that the contributory negligence of 75% is also on higher side.
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 to the extent of 75%. The Tribunal has considered the evidence of the eye witness and the panchnama of scene of offence coupled with other evidence to come to the conclusion that the negligence was on both the sides the bus driver in particular and therefore contributory negligence of 75-25 was assessed qua the bus driver and the deceased. Nothing is pointed out before this Court to take a contrary view. The Tribunal has finally quantified the amount of compensation at Rs. 5,14,000/- after taking into account the dependency loss at Rs. 3000/- per month. 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