The main legal point established in the judgment is that the compensation awarded in motor accident claim petitions is based on the evidence presented, and the liability of the insurance company is determined based on the absence of evidence to challenge its liability.

JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH SHASTRI, J.

1. Present set of appeals is arising out of common judgment and award dated 23.12.2005 delivered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Fast Track Court, Junagadh in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 518 of 2000, 519 of 2000 and 520 of 2000 and since these claim petitions are arising out of very same accident, this common judgment and award is challenged by way of aforesaid appeals. Since facts are identical, evidence is common and learned advocates have jointly submitted to take up these appeal conjointly, the Court has taken up hearing of the appeals and same are being decided by present common judgment and order.

2. Facts in brief are that original claimant was traveling with minor daughters on 16.4.2000, at around 8.30 p.m. on Shil Rahij Road and carrier rickshaw was driven in a rash and negligent manner by opponent driver and said rickshaw was bearing registration No. GJ-10 V 4258. Original claimant, i.e. Punjabhai Parmar was traveling in said rickshaw to attend Mandap Utsav at village Rahij and by fixing rate of fare for the goods, he along with minor daughters was traveling in said rickshaw. On account of rash and negligent driving, vehicle driver lost control and resulted into accident, wherein claimants were initially taken to a private hospital of Dr. Dolakia and were treated as indoor patients. Father, i.e. Punjabhai Parmar, suffered serious injuries on account of which amputation was made of right lower limb along with other serious injuries. Daughter Daxaben also sustained a hipbone fracture along with other injuries and was taken to hospital for taking treatment which went for a pretty long period. Surgeries were performed and they had to take rest for pretty long period. On account of this vehicular accident, father Punjabhai Jethabhai Parmar filed a claim petition which was numbered as MACP No. 518 of 2000, whereas daughter Daxaben @ Dayaben filed a claim petition which was registered MACP No. 519 of 2000 and similarly daughter Bhavnaben Punjabhai also filed a claimed petition which was registered as MACP No. 520 of 2000. Said claim petitions were taken up, wherein documentary evidence was led in the form of FIR, panchnama of sight, medical certificates, injury certificates, disability certificates, RC book as well as bills pertaining to medical treatment along with several other documents. It appears that during the course of adjudication of the said claim petitions, which were taken up together, opponent Nos.1 and 2 being driver and owner remained absent though served, whereas opponent No. 3 Insurance Company appeared and submitted written statement opposing the claim petitions.

3. So far as father Punjabhai is concerned, he submitted MACP No. 518 of 2000 for claiming compensation of Rs.7 lac under different heads, whereas daughters filed MACP No. 519 of 2000 for claiming compensation of Rs.2 lacs and MACP No. 520 of 2000 for claiming compensation of Rs.1 lac.

4. Opponent No. 3 Insurance Company submitted a written statement at Exh.21 and contended that claimants were traveling as an unauthorized passengers and have created a story as if they went for selling shawls and thereby hired rickshaw. It was specifically contended that opponent No. 1 was not having a valid and effective driving license and as such Insurance Company is not responsible to make payment of compensation and as such requested that claim petitions qua Insurance Company be dismissed.

5. From the record, it appears that issues were framed at Exh.28 and after considering documentary material on record and after assessing the relevant material, learned Tribunal was pleased to pass a common judgment and award allowing the claim petitions in part, vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2005, operative part thereof reads as under:

M.A.C.P. NO. 518/2000.

The claim petition is partly allowed.

The Opponents No. 1 and 2 shall pay jointly or severally the amount of compensation Rs.1,66,500/-with proportionate cost and interest at