1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 02.07.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Nadiad in M.A.C.P. No.2773/1990 whereby, the claim petition was partly allowed and the respondents, original claimants, were awarded total compensation of Rs.1,83,400/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs.
2. The facts in brief are that on 12.07.1990, after discharging duties as Police Constable at Petlad, Vasantkumar Virabhai Soneri was returning home on his bicycle. When he reached near GIDC, a motor-cycle bearing registration No. GJH 6449 driven by Manibhai Jethabhai Patel (deceased) dashed the bicycle from the behind. In the said accident, both Vasantkumar Soneri and Manibhai Patel (deceased) sustained severe bodily injuries. On 03.08.1990 Vasantkumar Soneri died during the course of treatment. The legal heirs of deceased Vasantkumar Soneri filed claim petition before the Tribunal, which came to be partly allowed, by way of the impugned award. Against the said award, the legal heirs of deceased Manibhai Patel, original opponents, has preferred the present appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the competent Criminal Court acquitted the driver of the offending vehicle of all the charges levelled in connection with the accident in question and therefore, the Tribunal erred in holding that the motor- cyclist negligent for the accident. However, it appears from the panchnama of the scene of accident that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the motor-cyclist. Had the motor-cycle been driven in a careful manner, the accident could have been averted. In Para-6 of the impugned award, the Tribunal has discussed the evidence in detail and thereafter, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the motor-cyclist.
4. So far as the issue regarding compensation awarded under different heads is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to assail the same. As discussed herein above, the impugned award was mainly challenged on the ground of negligence alone.
5. Considering the facts of the case and the evidence on record, I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held the motor-cyclist negligent for the accident. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the conclusion reached by the Tribunal and hence, find no reasons to entertain this appeal.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*