IMPORTANT POINT
The Court applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the retrospective applicability of Supreme Court decisions.

JUDGMENT :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) at the instance of the Insurance Company original opponent nos. 3 and 5 challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 19.03.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) in MACP No.458 of 2008. By the said judgment and award, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition preferred by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 – original claimants under Section 166 of the Act by awarding compensation of Rs.11,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual realization. The Tribunal has held that the present appellant along with respondent nos. 6 to 8 is jointly and severally liable for payment of such award amount.

2. In nutshell the case of the original claimants before the Tribunal was:

2.1 On 03.06.2008, the deceased Bhanabhai Parmar was going to Gadseesha from Mandvi on his motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ- 12-AP-1949. It was contended that the deceased was driving the motorcycle by following the traffic rules at moderate speed on the correct side of the road. While the deceased had reached near village Don which is approximately 12 km away from Mandvi, the respondent no.1 who was driving the Tata Mobile Vehicle bearing registration No. GJ-12- X-5237 came from the wrong side at excessive speed and in a negligent manner endangering the human life and dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to the said accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to such injuries.

3. The original claimant viz. Kesaben Ramjibhai Parmar – grandmother of the deceased, Narsinhbhai Ramjibhai Parmar- father of the deceased, Bhagniben Narsinhbhai Parmar- mother of the deceased, Hemlataben Narsinhbhai Parmar-sister of the deceased, Vijay Narsinhbhai Parmar- brother of the deceased and Nishaben Narsinhbhai Parmar- younger sister of the deceased had moved the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bhuj- Kutch by preferring claim petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs.25 lakhs along with interest and proportionate costs from the respondents. Pending the claim petition, the original applicant no.2 Narsinhbhai Parmar had expired and was deleted from the array of the parties. The claim petition was preferred against the driver of the offending vehicle – Shailesh Kalyanji Rathod- opponent no.1 and owner of the vehicle – Mohanbhai Karsandas – opponent no.2. The motorcycle was of the ownership of opponent no.4 Ratanshi Ladha Patel – opponent no.5. , the insurer of the said motorcycle was also joined as party respondent. The Tribunal considering the case of the original claimants had issued notice upon the respective respondents. The original respondent nos. 1 and 2 had submitted written submission jointly at Exh.15 who have disputed the occurrence of the accident. The dispute with regard to the negligence of the offending Tata Mobile Vehicle was objected to and in fact the defence was raised that it was the deceased who had driven his vehicle in a negligent manner resulting in an accident. The respondent no.3 had also submitted their defence at Exh.23 though the same Insurance Company has been arraigned separately representing the respective vehicles as respondent nos. 3 and 5, the Tribunal has treated the written statement produced at Exh.23 by the respondent no.3 to be the joint written statement tendered by the respondents nos. 3 and 5. No written statement has been filed by the respondent no.4. The Tribunal, noticing the pleadings of the respective parties had framed the issue at Exh.35. The Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence on record has answered the issue no.1 partly in favour of the original claimants by holding that because of the negligence of the respondent no.1, the deceased had met with the accident resulting in his death. On the issue of compensation, the Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence has