JUDGMENT
Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Valsad in Claim Petition No.118 of 1983 dated May 13, 1985. Claimants submit that Bhagubhai Kikabhai [deceased] was coming from Navsari town on his motor cycle bearing registration GRD 6228 to his home in Chikhali. When he reached near the signboard of village Khadsupa on National Highway No.8, motor car bearing registration GTR 8249 which was parked on the
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? left side of the road, suddenly started and took a right turn. The motor cycle coming on the road from rear side rammed into the said Car. The deceased received serious injuries on his right leg and chest. Initially, he was treated by the Doctor at Preliminary Health Centre, Khadsupra, thereafter shifted to K.G. Hospital, Navsari. While under the treatment, he died on 11.2.83. RS 2
2. The claimants filed petition for Rs.2.50 Lac alleging negligence on the part of the driver of the motor car. The opponents dispute the claim. They submit that motorcyclist was negligent. Car was being taken to the right carefully after giving signal and seeking assistance of the policeman. Looking to the nature of passage having been cleared with difficulty, accident between two trucks having taken place, negligence cannot be attributed to the driver of the car.
3. Question for determination before the Tribunal was, whether the deceased died in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the opponent and, whether claimants are entitled to compensation. If Yes, what amount of compensation is payable to them.
4. First question for determination is the party at fault. Version of the claimants is that car driver took the car to the right all of sudden without seeing the vehicle coming from rear from which the deceased was coming. As a result of this negligence, the motor cyclist rammed into car, resulting in injuries and ultimately death of the deceased. This version is supported by Balubhai Sukhabhai Patel [Exh.67] who states that he took the deceased to Chikhali and then went to his village at the distance of 14 kms. On the other hand, evidence from the opponents is that the road was blocked due to accident of two trucks, therefore, stone was removed to make passage for going to the right, therefore, car could not be driven in speed. It was driven with care after signal and seeking assistance from the policeman. This version does not find mention in the First Information Report, therefore, the Tribunal did not accept it and accepted statement of the claimants with regard to taking place of the accident and negligence displayed by the car driver. We have examined the evidence on this issue carefully. In our considered opinion, facts are very clear in the sense that motor car was parked on the left side of the road. It was taken to the right all of sudden without seeing vehicles coming from the rear. Motor cycle was the vehicle which was coming from the rear therefore struck against the right side front door of the said car. Contention that police help was sought and signal was given to vehicles coming from rear, cannot be accepted because it is sought to be supported by the policeman whose statement, cannot be accepted since in his cross examination, he has stated that his duty was for three hours which means upto 11.00 A.M., while the accident between the car and motor cycle took place at about 3.30 P.M. to 4.00 P.M. Further, version given by the opponent No.1 before the Tribunal is not in consonance with the contents of the F.I.R. as such, improvements have been made to shield himself from the liability. Consequently, we are of the opinion that findings of the Claims Tribunal on Issue No.1 are correct therefore, confirmed.
5. With regard to the quantum of compensation, evidence is that deceased was 37 years old as per the school certificate. He was doing business of diamond polisher, a lucrative business in that part of the State. However, claimants submit that deceased was giving Rs.1500 – 1800 per month towards household expenses. On this basis, compensation has been calculated with reasonable expenses towards treatment and last rites etc.
6. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, we find that just compensation has been awarded.
Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.