1. By way of these appeals, the appellants have challenged the judgement and award dated 31.07.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P Nos. 321 & 322 of 1986 whereby the Tribunal directed the original opponents to jointly pay compensation of Rs. 72,300/- & Rs. 60,000/- respectively with interest and proportionate costs.
2. The original appellants had filed claim petitions seeking compensation in respect of the physical injuries sustained by them in a vehicular accident which occurred on 10.11.1986 when the claimants were travelling in a fiat car and another car driven by the original opponent no. 1 rashly and negligently dashed with the fiat car. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Mr.
Sandip Shah, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal ought to have held the original opponent no. 1 fully negligent for the accident in question considering the fact that the original opponent no. 1 pleaded guilty in the criminal proceedings and also failed to remain present before the Tribunal. Mr. Shah submitted that in the case of Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 321 of 1986, the Tribunal has erred in not considering the fact that the opponent had admitted to consider 24% as disability as a whole and in such a case the economic loss ought to have been taken at 24%.
3.1 Mr.
Shah submitted that as far as Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 322 of 1986 is concerned, the Tribunal has seriously erred in deducting the amount of contributory negligence of 40% when the claimant was not driving the car. He submitted that the claimant therein was travelling in the car as a passenger which was driven by the original opponent no. 3 which dashed with another car and therefore the accident took place due to the negligence of both the drivers.
4. Mr.
Sashikant Gade, learned advocate appearing for the respondent supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that no interference is called for as the same is passed after taking into consideration the evidence of both sides. He submitted that the disability assessed is correct as per the evidence in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 321 of 1986. He submitted that as far as Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 322 of 1986 is concerned, no disability certificate was produced and therefore the Tribunal has rightly not assessed the same.
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 original opponent no. 1 and claimant of Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 321 of 1986. The Tribunal has rightly assessed contributory negligence of 60%-40% on the part of the two drivers.
6. However, as far as the quantum of compensation in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 321 of 1986 is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the appellant at Rs. 5000/- per month and Rs. 60000/- per annum. Nothing is pointed out to take a different figure in that regard. The Tribunal has not considered 24% disability while calculating the economic loss which comes to Rs. 14400/- per annum. The Tribunal has considered multiplier of 15 which is on lower side. The just and proper multiplier ought to have been 17. accordingly, the future economic loss comes to Rs. 244800/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,20,000/- and therefore the appellant shall be entitled to Rs. 124800/- as additional compensation. However, considering the contributory negligence on the part of the appellant, he shall be entitled to only 60% of the additional amount which comes to Rs. 74,880/-.
6.1 As far as Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 322 of 1986 is concerned, the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 40% qua negligence. The drivers of both the vehicles are liable jointly and severally for the accident being original opponents no. 1 & 3 and therefore the appellant of first appeal no. 4434 of 1997 is required to be paid full compensation. The victim of the accident has option to claim compensation from either of joint tortfeasors who are jointly and severally liable since both have contributed to the accident. Accordingly, the amount of 40% of the compensation is wrongly deducted and the same is required to be paid to the claimant therein.
7. In the premises aforesaid, petitions are partly allowed. The claimant of Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 321 of 1986 (FA NO. 4433/97) shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 74,880/- as compensation at 7.5% interest from the date of application till realization. The claimant of Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 322 of 1986 (FA NO. 4434/97) shall be entitled to 100% compensation instead of 60%. The additional 40% compensation shall be paid at 7.5% interest from the date of application till realization. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top