1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 16.2.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Sabarkantha at Himatnagar, in M.A.C.P. No.635/2004, whereby, the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,33,000/- to the claimants with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of applications till its realization.
2. The facts in brief are that on 16.02.2004, several persons were travelling in a Jeep bearing registration No.GJ-0-M-9696 for the purpose of going to Bagalkot situate in Karnataka. When they reached near Snagamkos, one S.T. Bus bearing registration No. KA-28- F-1055 came from the opposite direction and collided with the said vehicle. As a result of the said accident, several passengers sustained grievous injuries and due to which some of them are died. In the said accident, one Mariyamben Vazirali Habibbhai Thavra also expired. Therefore, the legal heirs and legal representative of deceased-Mariyamben Vazirali Habibbhai, filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.635 of 2004 before the Tribunal for compensation. The Tribunal after hearing learned advocates for the parties and after perusing the record decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated hereinabove, against which the present appeal is filed by the appellant- Corporation.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has raised various contentions. He submitted that the tribunal erred in passing the impugned judgment and award. He further submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly apportioned the contributory negligence. The tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. The amount awarded by the tribunal is highly exaggerated, and therefore, he has prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents have opposed the appeal and have prayed to dismiss the same, as being without merit.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. As regards the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant with regard to the negligence, the Tribunal after considering the FIR and Panchanama, has observed that the accident in question has taken place due to head on collision of both the vehicles. Therefore, the Tribunal has held the drivers of both the vehicles equally negligence. The ribunal after considering the birth certificate of the deceased at Exh.85, Panchanama at Exh. 82 and Postmortem report, at Exh.84 came to the conclusion that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was about 46 years.
6. So far as the income part is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2000/-. It is an admitted position that the income of the deceased was at Rs.2000/- per month. It is not in dispute that the deceased was doing the business of filling milk in the private dairy. However, in absence of any evidence on record regarding monthly income of the deceased, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2000/-, which is, in my opinion, just and appropriate as at the relevant point of time, taxable amount was Rs.54,000/- per annum.
7. 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. Therefore, the present appeal is devoid of any merits and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
8. 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