1. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record.
2. The appellants herein have challenged the award dated 10.02.1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Porbandar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 100 of 1992 whereby the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 2,49,375/- to the original claimants-present respondents.
3. It is the case of the original claimant that on 31.05.1992 while one Shri Bhima Hatiya was riding a motor cycle bearing registration no. GAR 5344, a fish bogie bearing registration no. GTWW 1756 being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and hit the motorcycle as a result of which Shri Bhima Hathiya sustained injuries on various parts of the body and ultimately succumbed to those injuries. The legal heirs therefore filed claim petition to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties granted Rs. 2,49,375/- as compensation to the original claimants.
4. Mr. K.K. Nair, learned advocate appearing for the appellant no. 1 – Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the entire facts of the case and evidence on record and thereby erred in awarding compensation to the claimants by apportioning the negligence on the part of the deceased at only 25%. He submitted that the Tribunal has erred in overlooking the fact that deceased was riding a motorcycle without a valid driving licence and that he was not knowing how to drive the vehicle properly. He submitted that under such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the contributory negligence on the deceased at 75%.
5. Mr. Jay Thakkar, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Yogesh Lakhani for the original claimants supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the same is just and proper. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the Panchnama of the case and submitted that the negligence on the part of the bigger vehicle is quite clear and therefore the Tribunal is justified in apportioning contributory negligence accordingly.
6. As a result of hearing and perusal of records, this court is of the view that considering the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellants are liable to pay compensation to the original claimants to the extent of 75% jointly and severally. It is required to be noted that from the panchnama of scene of offence and the condition of the motorcycle narrated therein it is borne out that the fish bogie was more negligent. The original opponents no. 1 & 2 have not deposed on oath and therefore considering the documents on record and the evidence of the witnesses the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the original opponent no. 1 is negligent.
6.1 Considering the fact that the deceased did not carry a valid driving licence at the time of accident, the Tribunal apportioned 25% negligence on the motorcyclist. There is no evidence on record to show that the motorcyclist did not know how to drive. This court is in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal and therefore do not see any reason for causing interference.
7. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//