1. Since both these appeals are arise out of the common judgement and award of the tribunal, therefore, they are decided by this common judgement.
2. The appellant Insurance Company has preferred these appeals against the common judgment and award dated 30.06.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Main) Rajkot, (for short, “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.P. Nos. 571 of 1993 and 278 of 1993, whereby, the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.66,244/- to the claimants of M.A.C.P. No. 571 of 1993, Rs.74,470/- to the claimants of M.A.C.P. No. 279 of 1993 respectively, with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
3. The facts in brief are that on 05.05.1993, two persons were travelling on a motorcycle No.GJ- 10-A-7280 as pillion riders and at that time, one matador No.GJ-1-U-2292 came and collided with the said motorcycle. As a result, claimant Jivatram sustained serious injuries and the deceased Lakhabhai died. Therefore, the claim petitions came to be filed by claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Auxi.), Rajkot, for compensation.
3.1. The Tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after perusing the record decided the claim petitions and passed the award as stated hereinabove, against which the present appeals are filed by the appellant- Insurance Company.
4. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the present appeals mainly contending that though the Tribunal has held both the vehicles equally liable for the accident, in the final order and decree, only the appellant-Insurance Company i.e. Insurance Company of the matador is solely held liable to pay the compensation.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It is not in dispute that the Tribunal in his judgment on Paragraph No.16 specifically held both the drivers equally liable for the accident, even though, in the final order original opponent Nos.3 to 5 are held liable to pay the compensation. Under the circumstances, the appellant-Insurance Company could not be held fully liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the appeals of the Insurance Company deserve to be allowed.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that all the original opponents i.e. original opponent Nos.1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. It is, however, observed that if the amount deposited before the Tribunal is already withdrawn by the original claimants, the same shall not be recovered from the original claimants and the appellant-Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the same from the other Insurance Company. But, if the amount has not been withdrawn by the original claimants, the same shall be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] ..mitesh..