The court emphasized the concept of 'just and fair' compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, highlighting the importance of providing relief to victims or their families.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant - Insurance Company, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 29.09.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Surat in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 38 of 2009, by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,89,700/- with 9% per annum interest to the claimants – respondent Nos.1 to 4, holding Opponent Nos.1 to 3 liable, jointly and severally.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 The respondent No.1 – Ushaben Chandravadan Gandhi is a widow, respondent Nos.2 & 3 are the sons and respondent No.4 is a father of the deceased - Chandravadanbhai. At the time of accident, deceased - Chandravadanbhai was aged about 57 years old and was earning Rs.1,08,000/- annually as mechanic and doing transport business also. On 03.10.2008 at about 1:45 p.m., deceased - Chandravadanbhai was called by Original Opponent No.2 – Dilipbhai Champakbhai Gandhi – owner of the truck for repairing his truck bearing registration No.GJ-19-T-721, deceased - Chandravadanbhai went there, he opened the bonnet, at that time, the bonnet has fallen down on the head of the Chandravadanbhai and he has received grievous injuries on the head. Therefore, he was taken to the SMIMER Hospital, Surat and was thereafter shifted to the Surat General Hospital, Surat, where he succumbed to the injuries. Deceased – Chandravadanbhai was only bread earner of the family, therefore, the claimants have lost their bread earner and also lost his love and affection to the family. Therefore, the claim petition is filed to get the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with 18% p.a. interest from the Opponent Nos.1 to 3 i.e. driver, owner and insurance company.

2.2 Notices were served to the opponents. Opponent No.1 – driver has filed his reply at Exh.22 by disputing his liability from the payment of compensation. The opponent No.2 – owner of the vehicle has filed his written statement at Exh.23 by disputing his liability as the deceased himself was responsible for causing such accident. Opponent No.3 – insurance company has filed its written statement at Exh.17 by disputing all the averments made by the claimants in the claim petition and also disputed the liability by stating that the said accident is occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself and moreover, Section 64(v)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not complied with and therefore, the insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation.

2.3 The Tribunal has framed the issues at Exh.28. Thereafter, the examination-in-chief of the widow - Ushaben Chandravadan Gandhi has been recorded. She was also cross-examined by the other side. The claimants have also produced documentary evidence; like F.I.R. at Exh.32, Panchnama at Exh.33, P.M. notes at Exh.35, insurance policy of the vehicle at Exh.36, R.C. book of the vehicle at Exh.37, driving licence of the deceased at Exh.38, medical papers and bills of treatment as well as I.T. returns for the last three years at Exh.45, 46 & 47, etc., and original opponent No.3 in the claim petition has produced the insurance policy at Exh.51 and no other documentary evidence is produced by the opponents in the claim petition. After considering documentary as well as oral evidence and submissions made at the bar, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding Rs.2,89,700/- compensation with 9% per annum interest to the claimants.

2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The present appeal is preferred by insurance company on the various grounds.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. G.C. Mazmudar for the appellant – insurance company has submitted that the accident is occurred in the premises of railway dockyard when the repair work was going one and the said truck was lying in stationary position. Therefore, as per the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, t