[1] By way of present appeal, the appellant - S. T. Corporation has challenged the judgment and award dated 01.09.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Gondal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.396/1995 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded in all compensation of Rs.4,74,840/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment of realization from the opponents jointly and severally.
[2] As per the case of the claimants before the learned Tribunal, on 26.06.1995, the deceased Jivanbhai Bavabhai Sonara was travelling on his two wheeler TVS-Suzuki Motor Cycle from Rajkot to Ganod via Dhoraji, one Ashwinbhai was sitting on the said motor cycle as pillion rider. At that time, opponent No.2 was coming with S.T. Bus at an excessive speed, rashly and negligently and dashed with motor cycle of the deceased from behind and as a result, said Jivanbhai and Ashwinbhai both sustained serious bodily injuries and during treatment, said Jivanbhai was expired. The appellants therefore claimed an amount of Rs.8,40,000/- from the opponents jointly and severally.
[3] Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in inferring against the S.T. Driver for the reason that the criminal complaint was filed against him. He submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that S. T. Bus driver was responsible for the accident, because he has not stepped into witness box ignoring the fact that the opponent No.1 - Corporation had preferred an application Ex.35 praying for issuing summons to driver at the address stated therein as driver was dismissed from service by the Corporation which application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal itself ipsi dixit. He submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the bus driver and motor cyclist responsible for the accident 90% and 10% respectively. He submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in not holding that the claimant Nos.2 and 3 cannot be said to be the deponent of the deceased as the claimant No.1 in her deposition stated that they were employed in plastic factory. He therefore submitted that the appeal is required to be allowed and the impugned order of the learned Tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside.
[4] Having considered the submissions of rival parties and perused the evidence on record and impugned judgment and award, it appears that the tribunal while considering the evidence produced before it, allowed the claim petition and awarded the compensation. After taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has given the observation in paragraph No.5 of the impugned award and, therefore, no error committed by the Tribunal in awarding the aforesaid compensation.
[5] In view of the aforesaid, I am in complete agreement with the findings and reasoning of the Tribunal and the same is just and proper, therefore, no interference is called for. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
[6] For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal stands dismissed.
[ K. S. JHAVERI, J. ] vijay Top