The main legal point established in the judgment is the apportionment of contributory negligence in a vehicular accident and the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

C.V. Bhadang, J. - These three appeals, involve claims for compensation, arising out of the same vehicular accident, as such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The accident in question occurred at about 11:15 p.m. on 12.06.2008, near Procter and Gamble Company on the Valpoi-Honda road. One Sher Ali (since deceased) was driving a mini bus bearing no. GA-04/T-5593 and was proceeding from Valpoi to Honda. The other vehicle involved in the accident is a bus bearing No. GA-01/U-2434, which was coming from the opposite direction and was being driver by one Gangadhar Ghadi, who was injured in the accident. Sher Ali died of the injuries suffered in the accident. Three claim petitions arose out of the said accident, giving rise to these three appeals.

3. First Appeal No. 11/2013:

The parents of deceased Sher Ali, filed Claim Petition No. 17/2009, against the driver of the bus bearing no. GA-01/U2434 and the National Insurance Company, seeking a compensation of Rs. 15,50,000/-, on the ground that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the respondent no. 1, Gangadhar Ghadi. The widow and the daughter of the deceased were arrayed as respondent nos. 4 and 5 in the claim petition as well as in the appeal, who have subsequently been transposed as appellant nos. 3 and 4.

The Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award dated 07.09.2012 dismissed the petition, holding that Sher Ali was solely responsible for the accident and thus, the claimants were dis-entitled to any compensation. Nonetheless, the Tribunal has conducted the exercise of determination of the quantum of compensation and has come to the conclusion that the claimants would have otherwise been entitled to a compensation of Rs. 10,73,000/-, in respect of the death of Sher Ali, but for the accident having occurred due to his own negligence. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.

4. First Appeal No. 37/2016:

Claim Petition No. 29/2014 was filed by Gangadhar Ghadi, against the widow of Sher Ali and the owner of the mini bus bearing no. GA-04/T-5593 and its insurer, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, seeking a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of the permanent disablement sustained by him in the accident. The Tribunal found that the claimant had sustained 10% permanent disablement due to shortening of the left lower limb and has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,18,400/- in addition to the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on no fault liability basis alongwith interest. The claimant feeling aggrieved by the inadequate compensation granted, has filed the present appeal for enhancement.

5. First Appeal No. 38/2016:

The appellant (the owner of the mini bus bearing no. GA-01/U-2434) had filed claim petition no. 30/2014 against the widow of Sher Ali and the owner and the insurer of the bus bearing no. GA-04/T-5593, seeking a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for damage suffered to the mini bus in the accident. The Tribunal has dismissed the petition on the ground that the claimant has failed to produce the evidence that the bus was totally damaged and was sold as a scrap for Rs. 25,000/- and also on the ground that the claimant did not avail of the claim from it''s own insurance company i.e. the National Insurance Company Limited. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant has filed the present appeal.

6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record.

7. The following points arise for my determination in these appeals.

(i) Whether, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing no. GA-04/T-5593, by now deceased Mr. Sher Ali ? OR

(ii) Whether, there was any contributory negligence of Mr. Gangadhar Ghadi, driver of bus bearing no. GA-01/U-2434, in the occurrence of the accident ? If yes, how the contributory negligence is to be apportioned ?

(iii) Whether, the legal representatives/dependent