1. Heard learned advocates for the appellant and perused the papers on record. Though served none appears for the respondent.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 08.04.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Rajkot in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 218 of 1991 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 70,850/- as compensation with interest at 12% per annum.
3. The appellant had filed claim petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 150000/- for the severe injuries resulting into permanent partial disablement in a road accident which took place on 30.05.1991 while the appellant was travelling in a maruti van bearing registration no. MH 12 E 5300 which was driven by her husband. The van collided with a truck. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Mr.
K.M. Paul, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the entire facts of the case and evidence on record and thereby erred in awarding adequate amount under various heads. He submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the appellant and the disability.
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 as well as her husband. The Tribunal has rightly assessed contributory negligence to the extent of 35% and 65% on the part of the truck driver and maruti driver. The Tribunal has assessed the disability of the whole body at 15%. The Tribunal also assessed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 2000/-. Nothing is pointed out before this Court to take a contrary view. The Tribunal has finally quantified the amount of compensation at Rs. 70,850/-. This court is in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal and therefore do not see any reason for causing interference.
6. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top