1. Present First Appeal has been directed by the appellant applicant original respondent No. 2 - insurance company, against the judgment and award dated 16/03/2012, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Gondal, Camp: Jetpur, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 59 of 2010, by which the learned Judge was pleased to partly allow the petition and award compensation of Rs.1,42,080/-, holding the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
2. Heard, the learned advocate for the appellant applicant.
3. Facts in nutshell of the case on hand are that on 16/01/2010, at about 5:55 p.m., the respondent No. 1 original claimant was going as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-3-AN-60, being driven by the elder brother of the respondent No. 1 herein - original claimant. It is the case of the original claimant that the motorcycle was being driven with full speed, rashly and negligently. When they reached near Sarang Bridge, situated in Jetpur city, one dog came in the way and hence, due to speed, driver of the motorcycle lost control over the motorcycle and the motorcycle got slipped. Due to this, the respondent No. 1 original claimant sustained head injury. For the said incident a Janva Jog entry has been registered by the police, which is numbered as 17 of 2010.
4. The learned advocate for the applicant has mainly invited attention of the Court to Ground (B) at page B of the Appeal Memo and submitted that the learned tribunal ought to have appreciated that there was no reason for the claimant for not filing the complaint for the alleged incident and only Janva Jog complaint has been registered, which is produced at exh. 25. He submitted that the said Janva Jog entry does not prove that the insured vehicle was involved in the alleged accident, as no investigation had been carried out by the police pursuant to the said Janva Jog entry.
5. I have heard the learned advocate for the appellant and also perused the judgment and award impugned in this appeal. On perusing the impugned judgment and award, it transpires that the learned Judge has, in Para 11 of the judgment and award, dealt with the aforesaid aspect of the complainant having not filed the complaint, so also, the aspect of involvement of the insured vehicle and has observed as under:
The applicant has, in support of his evidence, produced on record copy of Janva Jog complaint vide exh. 25 and Panchnama of the place of incident vide exh. 26. Considering Janva Jog complaint, exh. 25, produced by the applicant, it appears that one Dr. Raiyani Saheb has informed the police about the incident in question and in pursuance thereof, Janva Jog entry No. 17 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been registered. As mentioned in the said entry, Dr. Raiyani Saheb had telephonically informed the police that one Jayeshbhai Chimanbhai Solanki (present applicant) had fell down from the motorcycle near Sarang bridge in Jetpur and sustained head injury and had brought for treatment, and he has been referred to the hospital at Rajkot for further treatment. Considering the said Janva Jog entry, the same supports the evidence of the applicant. Further, taking into consideration the Panchnama of place of incident, exh. 26, it appears that the place of incident is Situated at Jetpur Khirasara Single Patti road, opposite Deepa Dying. There is evidence of having lied the motorcycle bearing No. GJ-3-AN-60.
(emphasis supplied)
6. It is important to note that against exh. 25 and exh. 26 respectively, Janva Jog complaint and Panchnama of scene of accident, no contrary evidence, either by examining the owner or issuing Court summons to the elder brother Bipinbhai of the claimant, who was driving the motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-3-AN-60, had been produced by the present appellant before the tribunal.
7. Considering the observations made by the learned Judge in the judgment and award, as aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Judge has dealt with all the aspects of the matter followed by proper reasoning for the same and hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the learned Judge has committed no error, which requires interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, the present appeal fails and the same is dismissed, in limine.
7.1 As the main First Appeal has been dismissed, no orders are required to be passed on the Civil Application. The same is accordingly disposed of.
[ G. B. Shah, J. ] hiren Page 5 of 5