1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 29.11.1997 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux I), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.583 of 1987 wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.13,020/ along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The present appeal is at the instance of the claimants for enhancement of compensation.
2.0 The above application was filed for compensation due to the death of Rasulbhai Kalubhai, who died in a vehicular accident. He was driving the offending matador and on the day of the accident it collided with an S.T. Bus wherein he sustained serious injuries and later on succumbed to the same. Therefore the aforesaid claim petition was filed and the Tribunal has awarded the amount as stated hereinabove.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant contended that the findings given by the learned Tribunal regarding negligence is contrary to the evidence on record. He submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the matador was negligent to the extent of 90% and he further submitted the Tribunal wrongly interpreted the evidence of Shri Rajeshbhai Vishwasbhai at Exh. 28..
4.0 On the contrary, learned Advocate for the respondent supported the judgment and award of the Tribunal. She submitted that while considering the evidence on record the Tribunal has considered the same in detail in para 14 of the judgment. Evidence of PW 3 Manubha Kanubhai at Exh.49 states that the matador was coming from the opposite direction on wrong side which was supported by the Panchnama. She therefore submitted that the Tribunal rightly assessed the negligence.
5.0 As a result of hearing and perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has considered the evidence on record in depth and in detail. Para 14 of the judgment reads as under:
“ In the present case applicants advocate had given consent for exhibiting the panchnama. PW 2 Rajeshbhai Vishwashbhai has specifically stated in his crossexamination that bus was stopped on the same side on which it was coming prior to accident. Prior to the accident no space was there on the driver side road. The PW 3 driver of the bus Manubhai Kanubha Gohel at Exh. 49 has stated that when he saw the matador coming from opposite direction on the wrong side, he took his bus on the left side on Kachcha road, so the panchnama support the say of this witness. No space was kept on the driver side road prior to the accident, when the driver of the matador was driving the vehicles. Bus was stopped on the side on which it was coming.”
6.0 In the present case the driver of the S.T. bus has specifically stated in his deposition that the bus was extremely on the left side of the road and this version is supported by the Panchnama and also the cleaner of the matador. No evidence is available on record to controvert this situation. The Panchnama clearly shows that the matador was lying on the left side of the road and it is absolutely clear that the accident has taken place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the matador. It is also not the case that the panchnama is not correct. In absence of any other evidence the Tribunal is justified in taking the negligence of the matador at 90%.
7.0 Further, there in nothing on record to show that after the accident bus has changed its position. However, as there is a head on collusion and as the driver of the bus who is driving the heavy vehicle with passengers he should be more careful while driving the same, when the road is 24” wide and no wheel mark was found on the road. In that view of the matter the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the negligence on the part of the driver of the S.T. Bus to the extent of 10%.
8.0 As regards the award is concerned, the learned Advocate for the appellant has failed to point out anything from the record that the award is on the lower side on any count.
9.0 I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal.No interference is required to be called for.
10.0 In the premises aforesaid the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) niru*