1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 9th July 1999 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Vadodara in Motor accident Claim Application No.1544 of 1992, whereby the said claim application came to be dismissed.
2.0 According to the applicants they were travelling in Jeep bearing No.GCB 9172. When they reached near Shraddha Petrol Pump on National Highway No.8, near Vadodara, the driver of the jeep tried to overtake one small motor vehicle and at that time one Matador came from the opposite side. The driver of the jeep lost control over his vehicle and both the vehicles collided with each other. Manisha alias Pinki was thrown out of the jeep and she died on the spot. The legal heirs of the deceased Manisha filed the aforesaid claim petition which came to be dismissed against which the present appeal is filed.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that specific averment was made in the claim petition that the accident was caused due to negligence of the jeep driver; that the accident has taken place on National Highway and therefore there is negligence on the part of both the drivers and that the jeep driver was bound to state that the accident was caused due to negligence of the matador driver to save his own skin and the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation in the matter.
4.0 The Tribunal has framed issued no.1 as under:
“1. Whether it is proved that the deceased died due to the injuries on account of rashness or negligence in driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident”
This issue was answered in negative.
5.0 Further, the issue no.1 was discussed by the Tribunal at paras 7 and 8 of the judgement. The ultimate finding of the Tribunal is as under:
“... Under these circumstances, I find considerable force in the argument of L.A. Smt. Parikh, for the Opponent No.3, that in this case, the accident occurred in the month of April 1992. The complaint before the police was lodged in the month of April 1992 (Exh.21) wherein, a clear reference is there that the accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the Matador Driver, but, they could not read the number plate of the Matador. So, the present applicant was not able to bring the Matador Driver, the owner of the said Matador Motor Vehicle, and, the Insurance company of the Motor Vehicle on record, and, that is why they have introduced an afterthought story in paradox with the Complaint that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the Jeep Car Driver, Opponent No.1. It also seems purposeful, because the applicant No.1, himself has admitted in his deposition, paragraph 5, Exh.27, that the opponent No.1, Jeep Car Driver against who, he has filed this claim petition in his relative, and, he used to take his motor vehicle free of charge as and when he needs so. In these circumstances also, in the deposition of applicant No.1, it is stated that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the Jeep Car Driver, Opponent No.1. It also seems purposeful, because, the applicant No.1, himself has admitted in his deposition, paragraph 5, Exh.27, that the Petition is his relative, and, he used to take his motor vehicle free of charge as and when he needs so. In these circumstances also, in the deposition of the applicant No.1, it is stated that the accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the Jeep Car Driver. The argument from LA, Smt. Gitaben Parikh, is wellfounded and, I accept it. In the result I hold Issue No.1 in the Negative.”
6.0 I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal. No case is made out to cause interference. The appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*