The court emphasized the importance of determining the cause of the accident and considering the deceased's income and age in awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J. - This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and award passed in M.a.C.P. No. 38 of 2001 by the Member, M.a.C.T. at Beed.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are as under:

2(a) Vilas Pawar (since deceased) was serving as a peon in Collector office at Beed. On 15.05.2000, he had been to aurangabad to bring some stationary of his department from the Government Printing Press. He was on the way back to Beed by sitting in the Government jeep bearing registration No. MH-23/B-1881. The jeep reached near Dongaon on aurangabad-Beed highway about 10.30 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. when a tractor coming from opposite direction gave dash to the jeep. The jeep turtled. Vilas Pawar sustained serious injuries and succumbed to death. The claimants have filed their claim before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 and sought compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-

2(b) The claim was resisted by the owner and the driver of the tractor. They denied that the accident was occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the tractor driving.

2(c) The Tribunal after considering the rival pleadings of the parties, evidence on record and argument advanced on behalf of both the sides was pleased to decree the claim partly to the extent of Rs.4,28,000/- (inclusive of N.F.L. amount) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization of entire amount.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the owner of the tractor has preferred this appeal.

4. Heard Mr. R.G. Hange, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. akshay Jagtap holding for Mr. a.N. Nagargoje, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 / claimants. Mr. V.S. Janephalkar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, remained absent. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 7 though duly served, remained absent.

5. Mr. R.G. Hange, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the evidence recorded by the Tribunal is perverse. The Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The Tribunal has also not considered the defence raised by the appellant. He submitted that the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation by ignoring the evidence on record. He submitted that the defence of contributory negligence is even not considered by the Tribunal. He, therefore, urged to allow the appeal.

6. Mr. akshay Jagtap holding for Mr. Nagargoje, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He submitted that the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence on record in a proper way. The Tribunal has also considered the defence raised on behalf of the tractor owner and driver. The Tribunal has turned down the defence raised by the appellant by recording cogent reasons. The Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation by looking to the income of the deceased. He, therefore, urged that the appeal may be dismissed.

7. I have considered the submissions of Mr. Hange, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Jagtap, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Perused the impugned judgment and award passed in M.a.C.P. No. 38 of 2001 dated 01.08.2005 and relevant evidence.

8. On careful study of the impugned judgment and award, more particularly para no.6, it is noticed that the Tribunal has considered the evidence produced by both the sides in the light of defence raised on behalf of the tractor owner and driver. The Tribunal has recorded finding that the accident was caused due to to rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing No. MZY-3912 attached with trolley bearing registration No. MH-21/7318. It is on the basis of evidence. It is also observed by the Tribunal that the tractor attached with trolley came to the wrong side of the road and gave dash to the jeep coming from the opposite direction, wherein the deceased was travelling. Because of severe dash given by the tractor, the jeep turtled 2-3 occasions. The brake marks of the t