1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-original opponent No.3 has challenged the judgment and award dated 31.03.1993, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amreli, in M.A.C.P. No. 102 of 1989, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 15% 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 19.03.1989 original opponent No.1 was driving the tractor No.GJQ-8117 with trailer rashly and negligently and he knocked down the deceased Jivkubhai and the wheel of the tractor was turned over on the deceased. Therefore, legal heirs filed claim petition being M.A.C.P No. 102 of 1989, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amreli for compensation.
2.1. The learned tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeal is preferred by the present appellant-Insurance Company.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal has not properly considered the evidence produced on record. He further submitted that according to the FIR, the accident took place because the deceased was trying to climbing the tractor when it was in full motion. He has further submitted that the interest awarded at the rate of 15% is on higher side.
4. Learned advocate for the respondents has supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly held original opponent No.1 negligent for the accident and therefore, no interference is called for.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record as well as the judgment and award of the tribunal. I am of the view that the Tribunal, after considering the evidence produced on record regarding the negligence, has rightly held original opponent No.1 liable for the accident. The Tribunal has discussed this aspect on Page-8. The relevant extract is quoted as under:-
"The Insurance company has tried to make out a case that deceased met with an accident while climbing over the tractor when the tractor was in motion and the case of the claimant is contrary to that of the FIR. The tractor was goods vehicle and the deceased was illegal passenger and there is breach of condition of the permit but there is no evidence to that fact and therefore, the say of the claimant should be believed. The opponent No.1 has not stepped into the witness box to challenge the case of the applicants. There is no other evidence".
6. Looking to the discussions made by the learned Tribunal, it has rightly held the original opponent No.1 negligent for the accident. Moreover, from the Panchnama also it appears that the view taken by the Tribunal is the most probable view.
7. In that view of the matter the tribunal has committed no error, and the award is just and proper. However, I am of the opinion that the 15% interest awarded by the tribunal is on higher side. The tribunal ought to have awarded 12% interest instead of 15%. Therefore, the interest is reduced from 15% to 12%. The excess amount of 3% of interest will be refunded back to the appellant-Insurance Company, if the same is deposited by the appellant with the tribunal.
8. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed only qua the interest. The judgment and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. Decree be drawn accordingly.
[K.S.JHAVERI,J.] ..mitesh..
Top