1. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 09.08.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamnagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 361 of 1994 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 1,70,400/- as compensation with interest at 9% per annum.
3. It is the case of the appellant that while shri Bhimjibhai Patel-now deceased was driving maruti car bearing registration no. GBU 85, an S.T. Bus bearing registration no. GJ-1-Z-3327 coming from behind and a tanker bearing registration no. GJ-3-U-4044 coming from the opposite side and the car of the claimant dashed with each other as a result of which he 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.
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 contributory negligence on the part of the S.T. Bus driver at 60%. 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 60%, the tanker driver to the extent of 20% and the deceased himself to the extent of 20%.. The Tribunal has in para 15 of the impugned award has observed that from the descriptions of the place of accident, positions of three vehicles, distance between the vehicles, damage caused to the vehicle and complaint lodged by the S.T .driver, it appears that when Maruti Car driver, the deceased tried to overtake S.T bus, the driver of S.T bus turned his bus more towards northern side of the road and applied brake as a result of which, Maruti Car, after dashing with the oncoming tanker which was on the correct side of the road was itself dashed by S.T bus from back side of the road with full force and therefore it was flunged and ultimately rested in broken condition.
5.1 It is required to be noted that the highway on which the accident took place was wide enough to foresee any uncomfort for the maruti car while overtaking. The oral evidence of S.T bus driver is shaky. There was no fault totally on the part of the car driver. If the S.T bus driver had given signal to the Maruti Car driver regarding the oncoming vehicle perhaps he could have evaded to overtake the bus. In such an event the Tribunal has rightly assessed the negligence on the part of the each vehicle drivers. 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// Top