1. By way of this appeal the appellant has challenged judgement and award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Ahmedabad dated 20.04.2011 passed in M.A.C.P No. M-106 of 2008 whereby the tribunal has awarded amount of Rs. 3,36,500/- alongwith interest @ 9% as compensation to the original claimants.
2. Brief facts of the case are that:
On 10.08.2008, at about 7.00 a.m. the deceased- Naginbhai was going to market by driving the motorcycle No. GJ-1-JB-6045, owned by opponent No.4, with moderate speed and on the correct side for purchasing the goods. Minor Vishal S/o. Ranjitsinh, being neighbour of the original applicants was sitting as pillion rider While passing from tatanagar near Mental Bari, Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad, one motor car No. GJ-1-HQ!-92 came from Ratnasagar Cross roads with full speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle, as a result of which the motorcyclist and the pillion rider were hung into air and fell down on the road and sustained serious injuries. The victims were immediately shifted to the nearest hospital and during the course of treatment deceased Naginbhai succumbed to the injuries. At the time of accident, the deceased was 47 years of age and he was doing miscellaneous labour work and earning Rs. 3,300/- per month. Hence, the original applicants have filed the petition claiming Rs. 6,00,000/- from the opponents.
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Ahmedabad vide judgement and award dated 20.04.2011 passed in M.A.C.P No. M-106 of 2008 has awarded amount of Rs. 3,36,500/- alongwith interest @ 9% as compensation to the original applicants.
Being aggrieved by the said judgement and award, the appellant herein, original respondent No. 5, has filed the appeal.
3. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal erred in awarding amount of Rs. 3,36,500/- as compensation to the applicants. He further submitted that the tribunal has erred in holding that since the application was filed u/s. 163-A of the M.V.Act, negligence is not required to be seen. Moreover, he argued that the deceased himself was driving the motorcycle and therefore, for his own negligence he cannot claim compensation from insurance company of the motorcycle. He further submitted that deceased is third party qua other vehicle involved in the accident so his legal heirs can claim compensation from the insurance company of the car and hence, the judgement and award passed dated 20.04.2011 passed by the tribunal is unjust and is required to be quashed and set aside. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. v. Sinitha and others, 2011 (13) SCALE 84.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Considering the facts of the case and in view of the principle laid down in Sinitha's case (supra), the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for consideration afresh in light of the above judgment. Accordingly, the impugned judgement and award dated 24.04.2011 is quashed and set aside. Both the sides shall be at liberty to adduce evidence. The amount lying with the Tribunal shall be invested in FDR and interest shall be aloowed to be accumulated pending final disposal of the claim petition. The entire amount with interest accrued thereon shall be paid to the party which succeeds in the claim petition, after giving necessary set-off of the amount that might have already been received by the original claimants. The Tribunal shall decide the claim petition within two years from the date of receipt of writ of this order. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K.S.Jhaveri, J.] Jyoti