The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of negligence in a motor accident, the liability of the insurance company, and the assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

R.P. Dholaria, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited as well as Driver and Owner of the Truck bearing Registration No. GTY-6075, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 29.11.1991 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 578 of 1985, wherein the learned Tribunal has been pleased to award the compensation of Rs. 4,44,000/-.

2. The appellants have inter-alia contended that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence and has wrongly recorded the finding of negligence against the driver of offending Truck bearing Registration No. GTY-6075. The learned Tribunal has placed unnecessary reliance upon the panchnama of scene of accident and has erred thereon. The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that deceased-Narsinhbhai Devakaranbhai Patel was a passenger in Truck bearing Registration No. GTY-6075 and his risk is not covered in the Insurance Policy and therefore, no liability could have been fastened upon the Insurance Company. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly recorded the finding regarding the income and also wrongly adopted the multiplier for computing the future loss of income.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased-Narsinhbhai Devkaranbhai was travelling in Truck No. GTY-6075 while going from Rakhial to Modasa on 13.3.1985, at that time, Truck No. GRN-4026 was coming from the opposite side. A motor Truck No. GRN-3393 was following the Truck of the deceased Narsinhbhai Devkaranbhai. The opponent No. 1 was driving the Truck No. GTY-6075 wherein deceased was travelling and the Truck was owned by the opponent No. 3. The opponent No. 6 was the driver of the Truck No. GRN-4026 which was coming from the opposite side and it was owned by opponent No. 4. One motor Truck No. GRN-3393 was coming at the relevant time from the back side of the Truck No. GTY-6075. The Truck bearing No. GTY-6075 wherein the deceased was travelling got sandwiched from both the sides, i.e. Truck No. GRN-4026 from the front side and Truck No. GRN-3393 from the back side. Truck No. GRN-3393 was being driven by opponent No. 2 and was owned by opponent No. 5. Opponent No. 8 is the insurer of Truck No. GTY-6075. Opponent No. 7 is the insurer of Truck No. GRN-3393 and opponent No. 9 is the insurer of Truck No. GRN-4026.

4. Mr. R.G. Dwivedi, learned advocate appearing for appellant No. 1 has drawn attention of this Court to the record and proceeding of learned trial Court as well as impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and he has also argued that the learned Tribunal has fallen in error in recording sole negligence on the part of the driver of Truck No. GTY-6075 even though three vehicles were involved in the accident and prima facie, it appears that head-on-collusion had taken place between Truck No. GTY-6075 and Truck No. GRN-4026.

5. Mr. R.G. Dwivedi, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has also raised second contention as regard to fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company and he has argued that the deceased was travelling in the aforesaid Truck No. GTY-6075 as unauthorized passenger even though the vehicle in question was a goods vehicle and therefore the Tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability upon the Insurance company. Mr. Dwivedi has also raised third contention as regard to the question of quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants.

6. Against the aforesaid argument Ms. Lilu Bhaya, learned advocate appearing for opponent No. 10 has contended that the learned Tribunal has elaborately dealt with all the contentions raised as regard to the facts as well as law points in the impugned judgment and has recorded detailed findings, assigning appropriate reasons, which calls for no interference by this Court. She has supported the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and has prayed that the appeal may be