1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 4th March 2003 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) Fast Track Court No.1, Bharuch in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.758 of 1991 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,50,000/ along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization.
2.0 On 26th July 1991 one Karsanbhai Chunilal was driving a truck bearing No.GTO 482. According to the claimants, the truck bearing No.TN27/V0769 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the other truck as a result of which Karsanbhai sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The legal heirs therefore filed the aforesaid claim petition wherein the aforesaid award came to be filed.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that it was a case of contributory negligence; that the tempo driver had failed to maintain the requisite distance which is required to be maintained between two vehicles while driving on the highway; that the income should have been at Rs.1500/ and the multiplier should have been 17.
4.0 As regards the negligence is concerned, the Tribunal has discussed the negligence at para 7 which reads as under:
(7) The claimants have produced a documentary evidence to prove the negligence on the part of the truck driver of Truck No. TN27/V0769. The F.I.R. is produced at Exh. 43. As per Exh. 43, the complaint is lodged against the truck driver of Truck No. TN 27/V0769 which was lodged by Head Constable Navalbhai Fulabhai wherein it is specifically stated with regard to the negligence on the part of the driver of Truck – No. Tn27/V0769. The panchnama is produced at Exh. 44 wherein the position of Truck No. TN27/V0769, Truck No. GTO482 and Tempo No. GJ 6/T4358 is shown. Looking to the averments of F.I.R at Exh. 43 as well as contents of the panchnama Exh. 44 and as per the deposition of witness Kanubhai Exh. 69 the averments of Exh. 43 and 44 are supported by oral evidence and to disprove the same no one has come forward to depose on oath on behalf of the Oriental Insurance Company ( i.e insurance company of Truck No. TN27/V0769). Merely because the claimant of MACP No. 93 of 93 has averred about the negligence of Truck No. G.T.O482 itself is not sufficient to say that the truck driver of Truck No. TN27/V 0769 was not negligent. The claimant of MACP No. 93/93 has thereafter joined the driver as well as owner and insurance company of Truck No. TN27/V0769 as a party as per order below Exh. 60.”
4.1 Thus, it is proved by the documentary evidence that truck driver of Truck No. TN27/V0769 came on wrong side and dashed with the Truck No. G.T.O. 482 as well as the Tempo which was coming on the back side of Truck No. G.T.O. 482. In view of the detailed discussion I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the driver of the Truck No.TN27/V0769 was negligent for causing the accident.
5.0 As regards dependency benefit is concerned, the Tribunal has taken the income of Rs.1500/ per month which cannot be said to be on higher side. Therefore considering Rs.4500/ and taking half of the income the amount came to Rs.2250/ in respect of dependency benefit. Out of this a sum of Rs.400/ has been deducted towards expenses. The deceased was aged 30 years and therefore a multiplier of 17 was taken. I am of the view that looking to the age of the deceased the multiplier is just and proper.
6.0 I have also considered the other amounts awarded under other heads and find that the learned Advocate for the appellant is not in a position to assail any of the said findings.
7.0 In the premises aforesaid, I do not find any merits in the appeal.
The same is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*