JUDGMENT
Abhilasha Kumari, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. (appellant) against the judgment dated 19.9.2005 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara, in M.A.C. Petition No. 218/96.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.1.1996 the deceased Bhikhabhai Vasava, alongwith Budhabhai Gordhanbhai Vasava were going from village Karkhadi at about 7’0′ Clock in the morning to Mayur Park Hotel situated on National Highway No. 8. The above named two persons were going to work at the ‘Ponk Center’ in front of the said Hotel. When they reached near Ghavat Chowk, where they were standing to cross the road, a Matador bearing registration No. GJ-6U-741, owned and driven by opponent No. 1, came with full speed in a rash and negligent manner, violating all traffic norms. The said Matador, tried to overtake a truck going ahead of it and in the process, it hit the deceased Bhikhabhai, who became unconscious and fell on the road. He was taken to the Hospital in an ambulance but succumbed to his injuries.
3. The deceased was aged 38 years and was an able bodied man, who was working as an agricultural labourer. It is stated in the claim petition that he was earning Rs. 75/- to Rs. 80/- per day from such labour and, in addition, he had kept two buffaloes and used to sell the milk, therefore, used to earn about Rs. 150/- per day. Deceased left behind widow and three children and was the sole bread winner of the family.
4. The first and second opponent did not file any counter to the claim petition. However, the appellant resisted the claim petition by way of written statement. The grounds taken in the written statement were that of total denial of the accident itself and the manner in which it was stated to have taken place. The income of the deceased was also denied.
5. In the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the finding of the M.A.C. Tribunal to the effect that the accident in which Bhikhabhai lost the life, occurred due to the rash driving of the driver of the matador. The quantum of compensation has also been disputed and challenge has been made to the manner in which the income of the deceased had been calculated, as well as to the application of the multiplier of 14 by the M.A.C. Tribunal.
6. We have heard Shri S.B. Parikh, learned counsel for the appellant, and have also gone through the record. It cannot be disputed that the accident in which Bhikhabhai lost his life did take place, as is evident from the complaint and panchanama. Mangiben, the widow of the deceased, who was examined at Exh.28, admitted that she was not an eye witness to the accident, however, she clearly stated that her husband had gone to earn his daily wage and when she came to know about the accident, on the basis of the above documents, he had already breathed his last. Ample documentary evidence in the form of complaint at Exh.18, panchanama at Exh.19, inquest panchanama at Exh.20 and the post mortem report at Exh.21, go to show that the accident did take place in the manner in which it is stated in the claim petition. This lends support to the finding that Matador bearing Registration No. GJ-6U-741 was being rashly and negligently driven, due to which the deceased sustained the injuries to which he later succumbed. The documents speak for themselves and these are the documents that have been taken into consideration to ascertain the factual position by the M.A.C. Tribunal. As stated, this is a finding of fact, based upon the available material on record, which material has not been disputed by the appellant. The finding that the accident, in which the deceased lost his life, took place due to the sole negligence of the driver of the said Matador, cannot, in our considered opinion be assailed at this stage by the appellant since it is a finding of fact based upon adequate material on record. There is nothing which points to the contrary. Therefore, we find that there is no illegality or perversity which has been committed by the M.A.C. Tribunal, necessitating the re-appraisal of evidence in this regard.
7. Although there is no documentary proof of the income as well as the age of the deceased, in the post mortem note his age has been shown as 40 years and, therefore, the M.A.C. Tribunal has taken his age to be in between 40 to 45 years. Therefore, the multiplier of 14 can not be said to be excessive. Since there is no proof of income, and it has been claimed that the deceased was working as an agricultural labourer, the M.A.C. Tribunal has taken his notional income to be Rs. 500/- P.M. This finding of the Tribunal is a reasonable one, looking to the fact that the deceased was a young, able-bodied man, capable of earning that much.
8. The finding of the M.A.C. Tribunal is based upon available documentary evidence on record and is not baseless and perverse. On the contrary, there are no pressing legal grounds stated by the appellant which merit the acceptance of the appeal.
9. In view of the discussion, as stated above, the appeal is summarily dismissed as being devoid of any merit. Amount, if any, deposited by the appellant in the Registry of this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 be transmitted to the Claims Tribunal.
In view of the order passed in the main appeal, Civil Application for staying the execution of the award does not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly.