1. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 09.11.1992 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 676 of 1988 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation with interest at 12% per annum.
3. It is the case of the appellant that while the original claimant – present respondent no. 1 was travelling in an S.T. Bus, a truck bearing registration no. GTG 137 coming from the opposite side dashed with the bus as a result of which the original claimant sustained serious injuries. He therefore filed claim petition seeking compensation. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Ms. Maya Desai, 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 contributory negligence on the part of the S.T. Bus driver at 50%
5. As a result of hearing and perusal of records, this court is of the view that considsering 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 S.T. Bus driver to the extent of 50%. The Tribunal has considered the fact that the truck driver was driving a heavy vehicle on a highway which was sufficiently wide to allow two vehicles to pass at a time and therefore it was his duty to drive his vehicle in such a way that no pedestrian or vehicle is dashed by him. In the same way the bus driver ought to have been cautious enough. Considering the documents on record, the Tribunal assessed the contributory negligence on both the drivers at 50%-50%. Nothing is pointed out before this Court to take a contrary view. The Tribunal has finally quantified the amount of compensation at Rs. 1,50,000/-. 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//