( 1 ) BOTH the appeals [first Appeal No. 647 of 1989-Manohar Madhukar Tambe vs. Bhagubhai Liladhar and others and First Appeal No. 648 of 1989-Gitaben Vasudev Chugla and others vs. Bhagubhai Liladhar and others] are proposed to be decided by this judgment, since they arise out of the same accident and common award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Valsad at Navsari, in M. A. C. Petition No. 345 of 1985 and M. A. C. Petition No. 351 of 1985 dated 01. 11. 1988.

( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, accident took place on 05. 02. 1985 at about 12. 30 p. m. near village Adada. Vasudev Chugla (deceased) and pillion rider Manohar Madhukar Tambe going on motor cycle no. GTN 8418 were hit by truck no. GTO 3098 coming from opposite side. As a result of the accident, Vasudev Chugla died and Manohar Madhukar Tambe suffered serious injuries. The truck was driven by Bhagubhai Liladhar (opponent-1) owned by Vinodkumar Durlabhbhai Patel (opponent-2) and insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (opponent-3 ). Consequently, minor Manohar Madhukar Tambe filed claim petition for Rs. 50,000/- and legal heirs of Vasudev Chugla claimed compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/ -.

( 3 ) IN M. A. C. Petition No. 345 of 1985, opponents-1and2 have not filed reply. Reply (exh. 19) was filed by opponent-3. It is stated that truck was insured with the opponent-3-Insurance Company for third party risk. Age and injuries of the applicant-Manohar Madhukar Tambe were denied. It is also denied that opponent-1 drove the truck on wrong side and dashed against the motor cycle. It is denied that applicant spent Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses and suffered loss of Rs. 5,000/- in education. Further, it is denied that his leg was shortened, he is not able to squat, run and walk properly. His permanent partial disability was also disputed. It was stated that the claim was highly exaggerated.

( 4 ) IN M. A. C. Petition No. 351 of 1985, with regard to claim of heirs of deceased Vasudev Chugla, age and income of deceased was disputed. It was denied that deceased was holding valid driving license to drive the vehicle. Further, allegation of rash and negligent driving by driver was not admitted and stated that deceased was responsible for the accident and the claim was highly exaggerated.

( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, in both the cases, evidence was sought and parties heard. The finding recorded is that accident took place, as alleged by the claimants, therefore, claimants were held entitled to compensation. Minor Manohar Madhukar Tambe was awarded compensation of Rs. 39,600/- and legal heirs of deceased Vasudev Chugla Rs. 1,35,000/ -. In both cases, interest at 12% per annum from the date of application till realisation has been awarded.

( 6 ) THESE appeals arise at the instance of the claimants. They seek just compensation. Appellants heard and record perused.

( 7 ) GITABEN, wife of Vasudev Chugla has appeared as witness and states that accident took place in which her husband died. Minor Manohar Madhukar Tambe states that he was pillion rider at the time of accident and the motor cycle was being driven by the deceased. At about 12. 30 p. m. near village Adada they were going on the left side of the road. The truck came from opposite direction in full speed and knocked down the scooter, colliding with it on the front side, and they were thrown off. Truck driver neither filed statement of defence nor appeared as witness to explain the accident. Copy of F. I. R. (exh. 30) and copy of Panchanama (exh. 31) were produced. Panchnama shows that scooter was lying on the western border of the pucca road, the left guard was broken, there was blood spot and at a distance of 2 feet there was blood pool. Though the motor cycle was being driven on the left side of the road, still it was hit by the truck. Case was made out against the truck driver by the police for negligent driving, though he was acquitted later. Claims Tribunal did not find it to be a case of contributing neg