1. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 13.08.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surendranagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 285 of 1995 so far as the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,81,000/- as compensation with interest at 9% per annum.
3. It is the case of the claimants that while Smt. Lilaben Valjibhai-now deceased was travelling in a Chhakdo rickshaw bearing registration no. GJ-13 T 5636, an S.T. Bus bearing registration no. GJ-1-Z-3042 coming from the opposite side hit the rickshaw as a result of which Lilaben was dragged around 50 ft. She sustained serious injuries and finally succumbed to the same. The original claimants being legal heirs and representatives therefore filed claim petition seeking compensation. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Ms. Vasavdatta Bhatt, 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 wrongly assessing the contributory negligence on the part of the S.T. Bus driver at 75%. She submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that in the panchnama of the site of accident there is no mention regarding the involvement of the bus. No other point is urged.
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 S.T. Bus driver to the extent of 75% and the deceased herself to the extent of 25%. The Tribunal has considered the panchnama in detail and the evidence of independent witnesse viz. Valiben Parmar vide Ex. 67 which corroborates with the story of the claimants. The Tribunal has in para 11 of the impugned award has observed that at the place of accident there is a curve and evidence of drivers of both the vehicles is not reliable because they are interested parties. In such an event the Tribunal has rightly assessed the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the deceased. Nothing is pointed out before this Court to take a contrary view.
6. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//