1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Valsad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.120 of 1986, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,11,144/- to original claimant with running interest at the rate of 12% p.a. From the date of the application till its realization and proportionate cost.
2. The facts of the case is that on 21.10.1985, deceased Manubhai was going on Luna and at that time the original opponent No.1 came by driving vehicle No.GRT-5348 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the Luna of the deceased. As a result, the appellant sustained several injuries and died subsequently. Therefore, the appellant filed claim petition being Motor Accident Claims Petition No.120 of 1986 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Valsad for compensation.
3. The Tribunal, after hearing learned advocate for the parties and after considering the evidence produced on record, decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated herein above, against which present appeal is preferred.
4. Learned counsel Mr. Rajni Mehta for the appellant has contended that the accident was not occurred on the public road. He has further contended that the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submitted no interference is called for and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that the as per FIR given by the original opponent No.1 – truck driver, it can be held that the Luna came from behind and dashed with the truck and therefore, the accident took place. The Tribunal in his judgment in Paragraph No.14 dealt with this issue. The Tribunal has observed in his judgment that the Luna was found 3½ fts. ahead from the back wheel of the truck, which shows that the impact was with force. The Tribunal, after considering Panchanama, deposition of eye-witness and after considering fact that the complainant-driver of the truck was not examined held the driver of the truck- original opponent No.1 solely liable for the accident. Therefore, in my view, the Tribunal has rightly concluded after considering oral evidence as well as documentary evidence in the form of Panchanama that the driver of the truck was solely liable for the accident.
8. So far as the issue of quantum is concerned, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the documentary evidence in the form of salary certificate vide Exh.69, birth certificate vide Exh.71 and vouchers of the business of store run by the deceased produced vide list Exh.16 and assessed the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.2,000/-. The Tribunal deducted Rs.500/- towards personal expenses of the deceased and thus, the Tribunal rightly considered monthly dependency at Rs.1,500/-. The Tribunal was also justified in adopting the multiplier of 15, considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal was also justified in awarding compensation under other heads, therefore, in my view no interference is called for and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
9. Even otherwise, in view of the fact that the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle have already been deleted the appeal deserves to be dismissed. No interference is called for. Hence, present appeal is dismissed.
..mitesh..
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.]