All these appeals arise out of the same accident and involve common questions on law and facts. Hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 1. First Appeal No.4121/1998 has been preferred by the appellant, original claimant, against the common judgment and award dated 30.04.1998 passed in M.A.C.P. 435/1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Valsad at Navsari (for short, “the Tribunal”) insofar as the claim petition was partly allowed and the appellant was awarded total compensation of Rs.1,04,785/ along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization as against the total claim of Rs.2.50 Lacs.
Whereas, First Appeal No.4864/1998 has been preferred by the appellant, original claimant in M.A.C.P. No.439/1988, against the common impugned award dated 30.04.1998 whereby, the claim petition was rejected.
First Appeal No.4858/1998 has been preferred by the appellant, original claimant in M.A.C.P. No.439/1988 and original opponent no.4 in M.A.C.P. No.435/1988, against the common impugned award dated 30.04.1998 passed in M.A.C.P. No.435/1988 whereby, the claim petition was partly allowed and only the appellant, original opponent no.4, was held liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,04,785/ along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization. The claim petition was rejected against all other opponents.
2. The facts in brief are that on 19.03.1988 at about 0600 hrs. Mukundbhai Harilal Dalal (Appellant of F.A. No.4121/1998) and Harin Pritamlal Dalal (Appellant of F.As. No.4864/1998 and 4858/1998) were going to Mumbai from Surat in the Car bearing registration No. BLB6980 driven by said Harin Dalal. When they were passing through the National Highway adjacent to Village Barol, it dashed with a Truck bearing registration No. ADG1485 which was parked on the side of the road. Original opponent no.1 was the driver of the said Truck, which was owned by original opponent no.2 and insured with original opponent no.3. In the said accident, both Mukundbhai Dalal and Harin Dalal sustained severe bodily injuries. Both of them filed claim petitions before the Tribunal being M.A.C.P No.435/1988 and 439/1988 respectively, which came to be disposed of by common impugned award. Against the said award, the present appeals have been preferred.
First Appeal No. 4121/1998 :
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The main ground on which the appellant, original claimant, has prayed for enhancement is that the Tribunal ought not to have exonerated respondent no.3Insurance Company from the liability of making payment of compensation since the Insurance Police was in force at the time when the accident occurred.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents Ms. Megha Jani and Mr. KI Shah supported the impugned award and submitted that the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and therefore, this Court may not entertain the present appeal.
5. Having gone through the records and proceedings of the case, it appears that insurance policy, if any, of the Car in question was never produced on record of the Tribunal. In fact, the insurance policy which has been produced by learned counsel Mr. G.C. Majmudar as a part of the paperbook of First Appeal No.4858/1998 was never 'Exhibited' by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant has also fairly conceded that the insurance policy produced at Page49 of the paperbook was not a part of the original records and proceedings of the case. In view of the above, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the respondentInsurance Company from the liability of making payment of compensation.
6. So far as the issue regarding negligence is concerned, the Tribunal has elaborately discussed the same in detail in Para8 of the award. After considering the evidence on record, more particularly, the 'panchnama' of the scene of accident, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Car in question had been driven in excessive speed at the relevant point of time. The Truck was found to have been parked on the correct side of the road. There is nothing on record to show that the brake lights of the Truck were not in a working condition at that point of time. Had the driver of the Car been attentive and alert, the accident could have been averted. Thus, I agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the accident occurred on account of the sole negligence of the driver of the Car. The compensation awarded in M.A.C.P. No.435/1988 is in consonance with the evidence on record and as per the prevailing law on the subject and hence, I find no reasons to enhance the amount of compensation.
First Appeal No.4864/1998 :
7. In view of the fact that this Court has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the sole negligence of the appellant, the present appeal does not deserve to be entertained.
First Appeal No.4858/1998 :
8. In view of the discussion in Para5 herein above, the present appeal also does not deserves to be entertained.
9. For the foregoing reasons, all the three appeals are dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the original claimant of M.A.C.P. No.435/1988 [Appellant in First Appeal No.4121/1998] shall be at liberty to recover the entire awarded amount from original opponent no.4 [Respondent no.4 in First Appeal No.4121/1998], who is the owner of the Car in question. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*