1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-original opponent No.3 has challenged the judgment and award dated 29.06.2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Sabarkantha in M.A.C.P. No.533 of 2004, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,09,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 11.4.2004, one Ramjibhai was going by driving his Maruti Car bearing registration No.GJ-1-RR-7662. At that time one Jeep bearing registration No. GJ-2-A-5593 came from opposite direction and dashed the Maruti Car of Rajibhai. As a result of the said accident, Ramjibhai sustained grievous injuries and due to which he died. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.533 of 2004 before the Tribunal for compensation. The Tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated herein above against which the present appeal is filed by the appellant-original opponent No.3.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the tribunal erred in passing the impugned judgment and award. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have attributed the the contributory negligence. The tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. Therefore, he has prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the material on record. I have also perused the impugned judgement and award of the Tribunal. The Tribunal while considering the case of the claimants, in paragraph No.7 has observed as under:-
"7.
It is the say of the petitioners that the accident has taken place on 11/4/04 at about 8.00 p.m. near bridge of river Guhavi situated in the sim of village Lalpur at Idar-Badoli Bhiloda road near farm of Patel Ramjibhai Dahyabhai, at when deceased Ramjibhai who was the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 going by driving Maruti Car No. GJ-1-RR-7662 in moderate speed and in correct side of the road and going from Goral to Idar, at that time opponent No.1 came driving the Jeep No. GJ-2-A-5593 with full speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the car from opposite side and therefore, deceased sustained severe injuries and therefore, immediately shifted at Niti Ortho hospital, Idar and due to severe injuries deceased was shifted for further treatement at Himatnagar Civil Hospital and due to serious injuries, deceased died during the treatement. It is stated that the accident was occurred due to sole negligence on the part of opponent No.1. The said fact is narrated by petitioner No.1 in affidavit at Ex.32 which is supported by the certified copy of complaint at Ex.33, certified copy of Panchanama of place of incident at Ex.34 certified copy oif inquest Panchanama at Ex.35, certified copy of chargesheet at Ex.38 and copy of P.M. note at Ex.42. On the other side opponents have not produced any oral as well as documentary evidence to oppose the say of petitioners. Considering the oral as well as documentary evidence i.e. certified copy of complaint, certified copy of Panchanama of place of accident and certified copy of charge-sheet which was filed against opponent No.1, which are clearly shows that the accident was took place due to sole negligence on the part of opponent No.1. Therefore, on perusing documentary evidence this Tribunal reached on conclusion that, opponent No.1 was 100% negligent..."
5. In view of the above, I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. Apart from that learned advocate for the appellant is not in a position to show anything from the record to take a different view in the matter. I find that the award of the Tribunal is required to be enhanced as the Tribunal has not applied the principle laid down in the case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 in awarding compensation. However, as cross objection is not filed by the respondents, I cannot enhance the compensation. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal and hence, I find no reasons to entertain the present appeal.
6. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
7. In view of the order passed in the main appeal, the Civil Application does not survive, therefore, the same is disposed of accordingly.
(K.S.
JHAVERI,J.) pawan Top