1. By way of this appeal, the present appellant has challenged the judgement and award dated 19.08.1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Auxi.), Panchmahals at Godhra, in M.A.C.P. No.304 of 1995, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of filing of application till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 08.01.1995 one Jayantibhai Dhulabhai Vaghri, present respondent No.2 was travelling in S.T. bus. When the said bus was reached near Anandpuri one stone lying on the road came from window into the bus and striked with the right eye of the present respondent No.2 and due to which he sustained serious injuries. Therefore, he filed M.A.C.P. No. 304 of 1995 before the Tribunal for compensation.
2.1. The learned tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated herein above against which the present appeal is preferred.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has committed an error in holding the driver of the S.T. bus negligent for the accident. He further contended that the Tribunal without appreciating the materials on record has and passed the impugned award.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment and award of the Tribunal. In support of his submission he relied upon the decision of the Punjab High Court in the case of State of Punjab and Another Vs. Guranwanti, reported in 1958-65 ACJ 110 and submitted that the judgement and award passed by the tribunal is just and proper and no interference is called for by this Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. The Tribunal while deciding the claim petition has not believed the evidence of the driver and shifted burden to the driver and observed that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. The Tribunal presumed that the stone lying on the road must have flown on account of impact of the wheal. In my view, it is difficult to accept the view taken by the tribunal as the stone lying on the road would have come only either from left hand side or right hand side. It cannot come from the direction in which the vehicle in question was plied. Therefore, the view taken by the tribunal is required to be reversed.
6. The decision relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent will not apply to the facts of the present case.
7. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the tribunal has committed an error in deciding the claim petition. Therefore, the judgment and award of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The entire awarded amount be refunded to the appellant-Corporation, if the same is deposited by the appellant-Corporation with the tribunal.
(K.S.JHAVERI,J.) pawan