1. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and award dated 25.01.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Panchmahal in M.A.C.P. No.1217/1992 whereby, the claim petition was allowed in part and the respondent, original claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.3,48,000/- along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs.
2. The aforesaid claim petition was preferred in connection with the vehicular accident which took place on 30.05.1992, involving the scooter No.GJ-17-7082 and Jeep No.GJ-17-G-15. In the said accident, the deceased sustained severe bodily injuries and died, therefore, the original claimants filed claim petition for compensation.
3. The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award mainly on the grounds that the Tribunal has erred in holding the driver of the Jeep solely liable for the accident, since the pillion rider was carrying a TV for the breach of rules.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted from the record that the Jeep dashed with the bullock driver of the Jeep was negligent and thereafter dashed with the scooter. Therefore, facts itself shows that the jeep driver was negligent.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
After considering the evidence on record in the form of Panchnama of the scene of accident, the FIR and considering the circumstances of the accident, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred on account of the sole negligence of the Jeep driver. In my opinion, while recording such finding, the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and has rightly held the Jeep driver solely negligent for the accident. Having gone through the impugned award, I find that the compensation awarded under the respective heads are just and appropriate and also in consonance with the evidence on record and the law on the subject. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal and hence, I find no reasons to entertain the present appeal.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
..mitesh..
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.]