The amount of compensation awarded in a motor vehicle accident case should be adequate to compensate the victim for the injuries sustained and the loss suffered.

JUDGMENT :

J.N. Bhatt, J.

As both these appeals raise identical and common questions arising out of common judgment and award under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('the Act' for short), they are being disposed of jointly, by this common judgment.

2. In First Appeal No. 1311 of 1991, the appellants, who are the original opponents, have questioned the legality and validity of the award of Rs. 9,94,040/- whereas the appellant in First Appeal No. 1542 of 1991 has invoked the powers of this Court for enhancement of the amount of compensation for the personal injuries, arising out of a road accident. Thus, the appellants in both the appeals have challenged the award and judgment passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 912 of 1986; decided by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad ('the Tribunal' for short), on 25.6.1991, whereby the original claimant/ appellant in First Appeal No. 1542 of 1991 is awarded an amount of Rs. 9,94,040/- with running interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application till realisation, with proportionate costs. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arraigned before the Tribunal.

3. A resume of the material facts giving rise to the present appeal may be narrated at this juncture.

4. The accident in question occurred at about 5 p.m. on 13.7.1986. The claimant; inter alia, contended that on the day of the accident, he was proceeding from his residence to Gandhinagar, on scooter bearing No. GUI 2095, and one P. Vijayalaxmiben was sitting on the pillion of his scooter. One Adinarayan Reddy and Jayantibhai K. Patel were also proceeding towards Gandhinagar side on their scooter in company of the claimant. They desired to go to Gandhinagar from Ahmedabad in search of a rented premises as claimant intended to start a multifunctional television set factory, at Gandhinagar. According to the contention of the claimant, he was driving his scooter with moderate speed and was proceeding on the correct side of the road before the accident. However, according to his further contention, when his scooter reached near Indroda Circle, at Gandhinagar, at that time a convoy of military vehicles came from the opposite direction with higher speed. Out of the said convoy, one jeep bearing No. RCL 83-F 2118 of the opponents suddenly came with great speed on the right hand side of the road and in the process of overtaking other vehicles going ahead of it, dashed with the scooter of the claimant, on its front side, with the result, the claimant was thrown off at a distance of 10 ft. from his scooter and so also the pillion rider, culminating into serious and severe injuries to the claimant. The scooter was also badly damaged. Thus, according to the contention of the claimant, the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the jeep of the opponents.

5. The claimant by filing the above petition claimed Rs. 25,00,000/- by way of compensation for personal injuries sustained by him on account of the aforesaid vehicular accident, against the opponents, who are the owners of the offending vehicle, with interest and costs.

6. The opponents appeared and resisted the claim petition by filing composite written statement, at Exh. 8, wherein they, inter alia, contended that the driver of the jeep was not rash and negligent and not responsible for the accident. According to their contention, on 13.7.1986, a convoy of Kumaon Regiment under the command of one Major K.M. Kuttappa, had left for internal security duties at about 5 p.m. The jeep involved in the accident was bearing No. RCL 83-F 2118 and it was in charge of one driver sepoy Pushkarsing. When the said jeep reached at the distance of 30 to 40 mts. From Indroda Circle, near Gandhinagar, at that time the scooter driven by the claimant dashed with the jerrican of the jeep. They also cont