1. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 22.12.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 73 of 1988 so far as the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,43,000/- as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum.
3. The claimant had filed claim petition to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- in respect of the vehicular accident which occurred on 12.06.2005 while the claimant was travelling on scooter as a pillion rider. At that time a truck bearing registration no. GJ-2-T- 9661 driven by the original opponent no. 1 rashly and negligently hit the scooter as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Mr.
Thomas, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the entire facts of the case and evidence on record and thereby erred in awarding higher amount under various heads. He submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have come to the conclusion that the truck driver is solely negligent in the accident and instead contributory negligence ought to have assessed on the scooterist. He submitted that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income, disability and the multiplier and the same are required to be reduced.
5. 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 claimant sustained injuries as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. The charge sheet was filed by the police against the truck driver. The truck driver was also not examined. The FIR, Panchnama and charge sheet have lead the Tribunal to draw adverse inference against the truck driver. Nothing is pointed out before this Court to take a contrary view.
5.1 As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has finally quantified the amount at Rs. 1,43,000/-. Considering Ex. 34 the salary of the claimant is assessed. The multiplier and disability is just and proper. 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.
6. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Civil Application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top