GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs. 3,85,000 towards compensation jointly and severally and limiting the liability of the respondent No. 3, insurance company to Rs. 1,50,000. The appellants herein are the claimants, i. e. , father and daughter of the deceased Y. Ramakrishna who met with an unfortunate accident on 7. 8. 1989 at 8. 10 a. m. and died. The claimants filed claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 stating that the deceased had a brilliant educational career who was a Research Officer working in the national Institute of Nutrition at Hyderabad and submitted that the deceased was 30 years old only on the date of accident and that in the normal course he would have risen to the post of Director of the national Nutrition Institute. The brief facts of the case are as follows: that on 7. 8. 1989 the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No. AHY 3537 and when he reached near the national Police Academy a lorry bearing no. ATT 7095 belonging to the respondent no. 1 driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle and caused instantaneous death of the deceased.

( 2 ) THE respondent No. 1 filed counter admitting the accident and involvement of the said lorry and stated that the same was insured with respondent No. 3 and attributed negligence on the deceased himself and stated that the driver of the lorry took all the necessary care and precaution while driving the vehicle and that since the deceased had overtaken the lorry and that he himself was responsible for the said accident and that the driver of the lorry tried his best to avoid the accident. It is also stated that he is not liable to pay the compensation and that the compensation claimed is excessive and also disputed the age and earnings of the deceased.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 3 insurance company filed counter admitting the accident occurred on 7. 8. 1989 involving the lorry in question and stated that the accident might have occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and also admitted that the said lorry was insured with the respondent No. 3 and stated that the maximum limit of the liability of the respondent No. 3 under the policy is rs. 1,50,000 only. It is also stated that at the time of accident, the driver of the lorry did not possess the valid licence and that the compensation claimed is excessive.

( 4 ) ON the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. With regard to the first issue as to whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry in question, the claimants adduced both oral and documentary evidence by examining PW 1 to PW 4 and also got marked documents Exhs. A-l to A-12 and exhs. X-1 to X-3. There was no evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent No. 3 insurance company examined RW 1 and also marked documents Exhs. B-1 to B-5,

( 5 ) THE Tribunal considered the evidence on record both oral and documentary and rightly believed the version of PW 3 who is an independent eyewitness and who narrated the cause of accident and specifically denied the suggestion that the deceased had overtaken the lorry and was responsible for the accident and stated that he witnessed the accident from a distance of 30 feet from the western margin. The tribunal took credence to the version of PW 3 who is an important and independent eyewitness and after considering both the oral and documentary evidence has rightly held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver.

( 6 ) AS regards the determination of just compensation under the provisions of the motor Vehicles Act is concerned, the tribunal though adopted the criteria of multiplier method but has failed to follow the judgment of the Apex Court in U. P. State road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chand

Click Here to Read the rest of this document