The main legal point established in the judgment is the reduction of compensation for the death of the driver to the extent of 25% of the total award due to the driver's contributory negligence.

JUDGMENT :

Umesh A. Trivedi, J.

1. These Appeals, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arise from common judgment and award passed by the Presiding Officer, M.A.C.P. (Aux. 3), Ahmedabad Rural, dated 29.08.2009 rendered in M.A.C.P. Nos.1283 to 1285 of 1999, preferred by Tapan Lalitchandra Champaneria and Bhikhabhai Muljibhai Champaneria for the death of Lalitchandra Bhikhabhai Champaneria, Kokilaben Lalitchandra Champaneria and Twinkle Lalitchandra Champaneria respectively, who have died in a vehicular accident on 05.04.1999 at 12:15 a.m. occurred between maruti car bearing registration No.GJ-1-RR-1495 driven by deceased Lalitchandra Bhikhabhai Champaneria, who happens to be the father of applicant No.1 – Tapan and son of applicant No.2 – Bhikhabhai Muljibhai Champaneria, and truck bearing registration No.RJ-14-1-G-0081, praying for compensation for the death of rest of the family members of claimant No.1 – Tapan Lalitchandra Chapaneriya, which came to be allowed partly awarding compensation in all the three claim petitions awarding different amount, as mentioned in the impugned judgment and award.

2. As per the case of the claimants when Lalitchandra Champaneria – father of claimant No.1 – Tapan Lalitchandra Champaneria, along with his mother and sister, went for Darshan of “Lord Ganesh” at Village Koth, on 04.04.1999, while returning back when they reached near Sanathal, on Sarkhej – Bavda Highway, deceased – Lalitchandra was driving maruti car which was dashed by truck bearing registration number, as aforesaid, coming from a wrong-side from front and because of the careless and reckless driving of the truck, accident occurred causing death of all the passengers traveling in maruti car. In the said accident, Lalitchandra Champaneria, Kokilaben Lalitchandra Champaneria and Twinkle Lalitchandra Champaneria (father, mother and sister respectively) died in the aforesaid accident. It is averred in the claim petition that deceased – Lalitchandra was serving as General Manager in Cadila Pharmaceuticals and car was allotted by the employer to deceased father and in that way, family members of the deceased were traveling in the said car. It is further asserted that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.51,203/- per month plus perks and his service remains minimum 15 to 20 years and is expected that he might have gross salary of Rs.1 lakh and more. Therefore, the claimants have preferred the aforesaid claim petitions claiming compensation for death of all the three persons of the family.

3. Since all three claim petitions arising from the same accident, it was consolidated and evidence was recorded in M.A.C.P. No.1283 of 1999.

4. On filing of the claim petitions and issuance of notices, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, who have preferred First Appeal Nos.249 and 250 of 2010, filed separate written statement denying the contents of the claim petition. It is contended by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited that accident has taken place due to sole negligence of the driver of the truck. They had also disputed the earning of the deceased as claimed. It is further contended by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited i.e. Insurance Company of the maruti car, that all the claim petitions claiming exaggerated amount of compensation and prayed for dismissal of all the claim petitions. United India Insurance Company Limited - opponent No.2 in the claim petition and the Insurance Company of Truck involved in an accident, filed separate written statement in each of the claim petitions, denying contents in toto. It has also contended that the accident took place on account of sole negligence of driver of maruti car. United India Insurance Company Limited had also disputed the earning of the deceased and claimed that the claimants have filed claim petitions for exaggerated amount and prayed for dismissal of all claim petitions. Rest of the opponents in the original claim petitions except two Insura