1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 22.12.2003 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.17, Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1497 of 1996 wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,30,620/ along with interest at the r ate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.
2.0 On 07.07.1995 the claimant was going on his scooter towards his home from the lane near C.U. Shah College near Gujarat Vidhyapith. At that time one Matador bearing No.GJ1U2283 came from the opposite direction and dashed with the scooter. The claimant fell on the road and sustained injuries and therefore he filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.5 lacs wherein the aforesaid award came to be filed.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that there was contributory negligence which was not considered by the Tribunal. Learned Advocate further submitted that the multiplier applied is on higher side.
4.0 As regards negligence is concerned, the same is discussed in para 8 of the judgement, The relevant portion reads as under:
“8. It is case of the applicant that on 07.07.1995 at about 1.00 a.m. The applicant was going on his scooter towards his home from the lane near C.U. Shah College near Gujarat Vidhyapith. At that time one Matador bearing No. GJ1U2283 came from the opposite direction with rash and negligent manner and dashed with the scooter of the applicant; because of impact, the applicant fell on the road and sustained injuries and disability. Very same facts have been reiterated by the applicant in his deposition at exhibit 25 before the Court. Copy of the complaint is at Exh. 28 and the copy of the panchnama of the scene of offence is at exhibit 29. Say of the applicant get support from the complaint Exh. 28 and looking to the panchnama road is from East to West. The scooter was found facing towards West an the scooter was 4' on the tar road near the edge on its correct side whereas the offending matador is also found on the tar road 4 feet away from the edge of its correct side. The road is about 15 feet wide. If we take mid of the road, its correct side can hardly be said to be 7.5 feet. Looking to the width of the metador if it is taken about 6 feet, in that case, the metador had occupied 10 feet of the road leaving only five feet for the scooter coming from the opposite direction. Therefore, the scooter being four feet away from its correct side, it can be said totally on its correct side. The metador driver had occupied major portion of the road. Therefore, because of rash and negligent driving, the metador driver could not control the vehicle. Therefore, this accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. In view of the evidence of the applicant and the documentary evidence i.e. complaint and the panchnama of the scene of accident. Not only that the driver of the offending vehicle is not examined as to how the accident had occurred. In such circumstance, adverse inference in regard to negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is drawn. So from the aforesaid evidence, it is evident that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the applicant. In the circumstances, it is proved by the applicant that the accident had occurred because of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle.”
4.1 Thus, there is a clear finding that the driver of the offending vehicle is solely negligent and therefore there is no substance in the contention of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant.
5.0 As regards the age is concerned, the date of birth is 5.5.1971. The age of the claimant was considered in the group of 20 to 25 years. Therefore multiplier of 17 is taken. I am of the view that the same is just and proper. As regards income and other aspects are concerned, learned advocate for the appellant is not able to assail them.
6.0 I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal. Hence this appeal is dismissed.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*