JUDGMENT :

M.S. SONAK, J.

1. Heard Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Netravalkar learned counsel for respondent No. 3-insurance company.

2. The learned counsel for the parties agree that both these appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment and order even though they arise from two separate claim petitions instituted by two sisters on account of injuries sustained by them in the accident that took place on 31.05.2011.

3. The findings of non-involvement or in any case absence of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Maruti Zen bearing Registration No. GA-07-E-3650 is common to both the impugned awards. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has however determined the quantum of compensation separately in both matters. In such circumstances, it is only appropriate that both these appeals are taken up and disposed of by a common judgment and order.

4. As noted earlier, the tribunal, in this case, has held against the claimants on the issue of involvement of the offending vehicle or the issue of rashness and negligence on the part of respondent No. 1, the driver of the offending vehicle. Thereafter, in Claim Petition No. 21/2012, the tribunal has determined compensation of Rs. 1,50,430/- and in Claim Petition No. 22/2012 at Rs. 1,25,014.50. Since the issue of involvement and/or rashness/negligence has been answered against the claimants no compensation has been awarded to the appellants/claimants. Hence, these appeals by the claimants.

5. Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned counsel for the appellants in both these appeals points out that the findings recorded by the tribunal on the issue of involvement/rashness/negligence are in the form of perversity. He submits that the driver and the owner had, in any case, filed a written statement in which they had not denied the involvement of the offending vehicle but they had taken a defense that it was the claimant/appellant in First Appeal No. 108/2015 who was negligent in riding Activa scooter and therefore, responsible for the accident. He pointed out that even the insurance company had urged the issue of contributory negligence in its written statement. He pointed out that the insurance company in its written statement had not even hinted at any collusion between the claimants and driver/owner of the offending vehicle. He submitted that there was overwhelming evidence in the form of police records. He submits that all this evidence was completely overlooked by the tribunal and the impugned finding is a result of surmises and conjectures. He submits that the approach of the tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita and Others vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others, (2020) 13 SCC 486, Anita Sharma vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 1 SCC 171 and the decisions of this Court in the case of Smt. Neha Arlekar vs. Mr. S.D. Rocky in First Appeal No. 23 of 2015 decided on 25.02.2022 and Narcivha Chari vs. Joao Faria in First Appeal No. 34 of 2017 decided on 04.03.2022.

6. Mr. Mulgaonkar submitted that in this case, there was a delay of only 13 days in filing FIR which was also suitably explained. He submits that the tribunal has almost entirely gone by this so-called delay but disbelieved the claimants' version about the accident. He submits that even this approach is directly contrary to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anita Sharma (supra) and Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and Others, (2011) 4 SCC 693.

7. Mr. Mulgaonkar submits that in this case, even the compensation awarded by the tribunal is not just compensation. He submits that there is evidence about the appellant in First Appeal No. 108 of 2015 being employed as a beautician in Doha Qatar. There is evidence about 30% disability. Based upon all this material on record the compensation of at least Rs. 5,00,000/- should have been awarded. He submits that the law laid down in Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar