Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory and distinct from contractual benefits, ensuring claimants receive just compensation for loss due to negligence.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE)

1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant – insurance company - original opponent no.2 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 27th March, 2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bharuch in Motor Accident Claim Petition no.579 of 2006. By the said impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the present respondent nos.1 to 5 – original claimants u/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Tribunal has held the original opponent nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.25,31,000/- to the aforesaid claimants along with the proportionate costs and interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of such awarded amount. The Tribunal has issued further directions with regard to the deposit, release and the disbursement of the awarded amount to the tune of 70-30% in FDR and in cash respectively to the respective claimants.

2. The material facts, necessary for adjudication of the claim petition as narrated by the Tribunal in its judgment are reproduced hereunder:

2.1 On 30th September, 2006, the original applicant no.1 i.e. Kundanben Dharmendrasinh Vachchhani was traveling along with his husband (deceased) i.e. Dharmendrasinh Vachchhani on their motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-16 N-4468 from their village Gajra to Anand. The purpose was to get a dressing of the ear of Dharmendrasinh Vachchhani (deceased) at Anand. On their way, while returning back to their village from Anand on the aforesaid motorcycle, which was driven by the husband of the applicant on the left side of the road in slow and moderate speed, one Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-7 AD-283, which was coming from Valvod side and was driven by the opponent no.1 driver at an excessive speed in rash and negligent manner, dashed with the motorcycle of the husband of the applicant no.1. The accident took place near the Chotra of Manima at village Vavlod, which falls within the jurisdiction of Bhadran Police Station. Because of the impact of the accident, both the husband of the applicant no.1 (deceased) and the original claimant no.1 were thrown away on the road. The husband of the applicant no.1 had received grievous injuries on his forehead, as well as on his right hand and was profusely bleeding. The deceased was immediately shifted to the nearby dispensary of Dr.Amul Raj, where he was given primary treatment and thereafter, he was admitted in PramukhSwami Medical College, Karamsad, where he unfortunately succumbed to the injuries on 1st October, 2006. The applicant herself also sustained injuries.

2.2 The complaint was lodged with the Bhadran Police Station vide C.R. no.63 of 2006 against the opponent no.1 driver of the offending vehicle – Hero Honda motorcycle. Because of the untimely death of the husband of the applicant no.1, loss of father and son, the respective claimants, who are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased have approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by filing petition u/s.166 of the Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/-. The said claim petition was registered as Motor Accident Claims Petition no.579 of 2006.

2.3 Before the Tribunal, the summons were issued upon the respective opponents and the opponent no.1, who was the driver-cum-owner of the offending motorcycle had appeared and filed a written statement at Exh.13. The opponent no.2 – insurance company has contested the claim petition by filing a written statement at Exh.39 by denying the allegations made in the claim petition. The specific defense was raised with regard to the contributory negligence of the deceased, who was driving the motorcycle at the time of accident by contending that it was a case of head-to-head collision. The opponent no.2 – insurance company ha