The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of negligence under the Motor Vehicles Act, specifically in the context of a road accident involving a luxury bus and a Maruti Zen.

JUDGMENT :

R.M. Chhaya, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the common judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) dated 30.11.2010 in MACP Nos. 231, 232 and 233 of 2003, the present appeals are filed by the insurance company of the luxury bus involved in the accident under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

2. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeals -

2.1 That the accident took place on 12.12.2002 between luxury bus bearing registration no. DD-02-9018 and Maruti Zen bearing registration no. GJ-5-AC-9377. It is the case of the claimants that the accident took place at 9.30 on the said date on Ahmedabad-Dhandhuka Highway near Bhimnath village. It is further the say of the original claimants that the Maruti car was proceeding from Bhavnagar whereas the luxury bus was coming from the opposite direction and both the vehicles collided head-on. The original claimants filed claim petitions being MACP nos. 231/03, 232/03 and 233/03 under section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation as under -

MACP No. 231 of 2003 - Rs.1,63,00,000/-

MACP No. 232 of 2003 - Rs.29,10,000/-

MACP No. 233 of 2003 - Rs.7,24,000/-

2.2. The original claimants relied upon oral deposition of Vijyaben Ashokbhai Jagani at Exhibit 50, Vinubhai Madhubhai Jagani at exhibit 41 and Sanjaykumar Vinodray Jagani at exhibit 35. Even the driver of luxury bus Shri Himmatbhai Jamalbhai was examined at exhibit 80. The Tribunal also relied upon documentary evidence such as FIR at exhibit 53, panchnama at exhibit 54, PM Report, documents such as Memorandum and Articles of Association, income tax returns, computation of income, balance sheets, LIC receipts, at mark 44/1 to 44/29 and 52/1 to 52/18, ambulance receipt at exhibit 70, medicolegal certificate at exhibit 71, discharge summary at exhibit 72, report of radiology department at exhibit 73, disability certificate at exhibit 46, form 2D for income tax at exhibit 74 to 76, permanent disability certificate at exhibit 78, school leaving certificate of the deceased at exhibit 56, school leaving certificate of Pinankumar at exhibit 57, form no.2D saral at exhibit 58 to 60, marksheet of pinankumr at exhibits 61 to 65, passport at exhibit 66. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record and considering the panchnama at exhibit 54, came to the conclusion that the driver of the luxury bus was solely negligent for the accident and partly allowed all the claim petitions and awarded compensation as under-

Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are filed.

3. As the appeals relate to the same accident and same set of evidence is adduced, the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

4. Heard Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellants in all the appeals, Mr. Paresh Darji, learned advocate for the original claimants and Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, learned advocate for the other insurance company, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in First Appeals No. 952 and 953 of 2011.

5. Mr. Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant at the outset submitted that though the contents and grounds as regards quantum are raised in the memo of the appeal, considering t