The court upheld the assessment of negligence and compensation, considering the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and the case of Master Mallikarjun.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. Both these appeals are filed by the appellants who, at the relevant time, while moving MACP no. 12/15 and MACP no. 13/15, were minors. They both have challenged the common judgment and award passed on 11.4.2019 by MACT (Main), Surendranagar making a prayer for enhancement of compensation money.

2. Ms. Ajmera, learned advocate for the claimants has stated that the claimants– minors had sustained physical disability and in MACP no. 12/15, the functional disability has been considered as 35% for the body as a whole, while in MACP no. 13/15, the learned Tribunal has considered functional disability as 13% of the body as a whole, as consented by both the sides. Ms. Ajmera submits that the learned Tribunal was required to follow the yardstick laid down in the case of Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited and Another, AIR 2014 SC 736.

3. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Rathin P. Raval submits that the learned Tribunal has considered the facts and evidence on record and the compensation granted is just and reasonable and thus, supporting the judgment, has made a prayer to dismiss the appeals.

4. The facts of the case suggest that on 21.11.2014, the appellant of MACP no. 12/15 was driving the motorcycle bearing registration no. GJ-13 K-3214 and the appellant of MACP no. 13/15 was a pillion rider. It was stated that they were on correct side of the road and motorcycle was driven at moderate speed and at about 6.00 p.m. when they reached near a mine area on Ratanpar-Rajkot bypass, opponent no. 2 came from the opposite side driving truck bearing registration no. GJ-15 XX-7030 in a rash and negligent manner in an excessive speed and dashed with the motorcycle of the appellants. As a result, both the appellants sustained injuries.

5. In cross-examination of the appellant of MACP no. 12/15, had admitted that he had no driving license and has admitted that the road on which the accident took place was having a traffic which was a wide road, where two vehicles could easily pass at a time and that there was head on collusion between the truck and the motorcycle. However, he had denied the suggestion that the motorcycle was driven at an excessive speed and because of that, the accident had occurred and the accident had occurred because of his negligence. Considering the deposition, copy of the FIR, Panchanama and the charge-sheet and relying on the evidence of the complainant observing the fact that the truck driver has fled away from the place of occurrence, in corroboration with the damage to the front side of the motorcycle as well as on the truck and the blood stain on the middle of the road as could be reflected from the Panchnama Exh.43, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred in the middle of the road and considering the fact that the motorcyclist, being a minor and was not holding the driving license, the learned Tribunal has attributed the negligence of 80% of the truck driver of truck bearing registration no. GJ-15 XX-7030 and 20% to the driver of the motorcycle bearing registration no. GJ-13 K-3214 who is the applicant of MACP No. 12/15. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal in connection with issue no. 1.

6. In connection with the evidence further led by the claimants, the victim – injured of MACP no. 12/15 was aged about 16 years. He sustained injuries on head, face, right leg and left hand he was given primary treatment in C.U. Shah Medical College and Hospital, Surendranagar and thereafter, was admitted in Hope Neurocare Hospital, Ahmedabad, where he stayed as an indoor patient from 22.11.2014 to 29.11.2014. The evidence was given with regard to expenses made for medical treatment. Discharge card and medical reports were produced on record and further, the disability