1. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 31.08.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Junagadh in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 221 of 1988 so far as the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.
3. It is the case of the appellant that on 01.10.1986 while the original claimant was driving a jeep car bearing registration no. GJP 1283, an ambulance bearing registration no. GAO 3045 being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side as a result of which the ambulance dashed with the jeep car and the original claimant sustained injuries particularly on the elbow of his right hand. The original claimant therefore filed claim petition to the tune of Rs. 40,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Mr. Devnani, 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 dismissing the claim petition. He submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the fact that the ambulance was in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the jeep at the front portion.
5. Mr. Sandip Shah and Mr. K.K. Nair, learned advocates appearing for opponent nos. 4 & 5 supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the same does not call for any interference by this court.
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 ambulance was coming from the opposite side with the emergency light on. The Tribunal has observed that it was rather a special duty on the part of the driver of the jeep to see that either he stops the vehicle for giving a sage passage to the oncoming vehicle driven in emergency even if it was in speed and that the driver of the jeep car was driving the vehicle luxuriously by keeping his right hand not on the steering but outside the window sill. The driver should have been more careful while driving at night and also when an ambulance was approaching from opposite side with the emergency light on. 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. Nothing is pointed out before this Court to take a contrary view.
7. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//