1. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and award dated 24.08.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main], Mehsana in M.A.C.P. No.1689/91, 1690/91, 1691/91, 1692/91 194/92 and 1251/92 whereby, the claim petitions were partly allowed and the original claimants of M.A.C.P. No. 1689/91 were awarded total compensation of Rs.1,05,000/, in M.A.C.P. No. 1690/91 original claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.11,400/, in M.A.C.P. No. 1691/91, the original claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.5,000/, in M.A.C.P. No. 1692/91, the original claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.5,000/, in M.A.C.P. No. 194/92, the original claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs. 97,250/ and in M.A.C.P. No. 1251/92, the original claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.10,250/ along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of application till its realization.
2. The facts in brief are that 17.11.1991, at around 0745 hours, the son of applicants in M.A.C.P. No. 1689/91 and 194/92 and the applicant of M.A.C.P. No. 1690/91, were travelling in a rickshaw bearing registration no. GJ2T2002 owned and driven by the applicant in M.A.C.P. No. 1251/92, and the two pedestrians, i.e. applicants of M.A.C.P. No. 1691/91 and 1692/91, at a particular place, the driver of the truck bearing registration no. GRW 968, in a rash and negligent manner dashed the said rickshaw and the pedestrians. As a result of which the applicants of M.A.C.P. No. 1689/91 and 194/92, succumbed to the injuries wheres the applicants of M.A.C.P. No. 1690/91. 1691/91. 1692/91 and 1251/92 sustained severe bodily injuries. Therefore, the legal heirs of M.A.C.P. No. 1689/91 and 194/92 and the applicants of M.A.C.P. No. 1690/91 to 1692/91 and M.A.C.P. No. 1251/92 filed claim petition, which came to be partly allowed, by way of the impugned award. Hence, these appeals.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding the drivers of both the vehicles equally negligent.
4. From the panchnama [Exhibit37] it appears that the rickshaw have left its correct side and came in the middle imaginary line of the road and the Truck dashed against the entire front portion and side portion of the chassis and body of the rickshaw. Looking to the position of the both the vehicles as described in the panchnama [Exhibit37], it appears that the driver of the rickshaw was some what responsible for the accident. Thus, both the drivers were responsible for the accident. In other words, it is a case of composite negligence. Looking to the contents of complaint [Exhibit36] and panchnama [Exhibit37], the Tribunal assessed the negligence of drivers of both the vehicles in the ratio of 50: 50 which in my opinion, is just and appropriate. Hence, I agree with the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence and find no reasons to disturb the same.
5. In view of the above, I find no merits in these appeals. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned award. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed. No costs.
[K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/