1. By way of these appeals, the appellant- original opponent No.1 has challenged the common judgment and award dated 04.06.1997, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morvi, in Claim petition Nos.624, 720, 458 of 1988, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,14,000/- to the claimants of M.A.C.P. No. 624 of 1998, Rs.2,16,000/- to the claimants of M.A.C.P. No.720 of 1988 and Rs.3,500/- to the claimant of M.A.C.P. No.458 of 1988 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 05.03.1988, one Somabhai Ishwarbhai Parmar was going to Nadiad on his Luna Moped bearing registration No.GEB 2703 along with his sons. One Rameshabhai Dahyabhai Solanki was the pillion rider. At that time one S.T. bus bearing registration No. GRU 9747 came on wrong side and dashed the Luna Moped. As a result of the said accident, Somabhai Ishwarbhai Parmar Rameshbhai Dahyabhai Solanki sustained grievous injuries and due to which they died. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petitions before the Tribunal for compensation.
2.1. The Tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated herein above against which the present appeal is filed by the appellant-Corporation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the tribunal erred in passing the impugned judgment and award. The tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. Therefore, he has prayed to allow the present appeals.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgement and award of the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has passed the impugned judgment and award. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss these appeals.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The Tribunal in paragraph No.14 has observed as under:-
“Looking to the submission of both the parties, this Tribunal is satisfied that the vehicular accident has taken place. Now, question only remains who was negligent in driving the vehicle. The witnesses who are examined by the petitioners are not eye witnesses, whereas the opponent No.2 who has deposed vide exh.30 is an eye witness. But, being the opponent, and in all the accident, naturally, he might not be speaking truth. He might have deposed saving his skin from the responsibility. Therefore, a copy of the Panchanama is only reliable evidence by which liability can only be fixed. The Panchnama has been produced by the petitioners at ex.35. It has been prepared by the Investigating Officer in presence of the Panch witness. It has been contended that the accident has taken place at the road having breadth of 45'. The road is having sandy footpath of 6'.6”. The accident took place at the distance of 20' at the southern side. It has been further mentioned that Luna involved in the accident is left at the sandy footpath having distance of 50' from the place of the incident. Both the wheels of the Luna are found damaged. Stearing of Luna was found damaged. Mudguards and leg-guards were found damaged .Human cloted blood was also found at the place of incident. If the entire Panchanama is looked into the scrutinized closely, it appears that the bus has dashed Luna. On account of that, Luna was dragged upto the distance of 50' from the place of the incident. If the entire circumstances are considered, then only one thing can reveal that the bus must be running with high speed, otherwise, Luna could not have been dragged upto a long distance of 50'. Since the accident is not denied by the opponent Nos. 1 and 4, moreover, the post mortem report, which confirm the death of both the deceased, this Tribunal is satisfied that the deceased has died on account of the injuries sustained in vehicular accident, and the bus driver has driven the bus with rashness and negligent manner. At this stage, this Tribunal cannot overlook natural human probable conduct, which might have reflected at the time of the accident. Had the driver of the bus could have applied the breaks, this accident could have been avoided. Even if the evidence of the opponent N0.2 is considered and accepted that he applied the breaks, no marks of applying breaks are found from the place of the accident, and the Panchas have falsified the deposition of the opponent No.2.
It also suggests that the opponent No.2 was driving the bus in rash and negligent manner, and therefore, this Tribunal is satisfied that the opponent No.2, S.T. Driver was driving the S.T. Bus No. GRU 9797 in rash and negligent manner and has caused the accident, which cause injuries to the deceased who died during the treatment at the hospital. Hence, Tribunal answer issue No.1 in the affirmative, that the driver of the S.T. Bus was solely responsible for the accident.”
6. In view of the above, I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. Apart from that learned counsel for the appellants is not in a position to show anything from the record to take a different view in the matter. Therefore, the appeals are devoid of any merits and the same are accordingly dismissed.
[K.S.JHAVERI,J.] pawan