The court affirmed that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must be just and fair, considering the severity of injuries and the claimant's permanent disability.

JUDGMENT :

(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J.)

1. The present appeal is filed by original opponent No.6 - insurance company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the M.V.Act”) challenging the judgment and award dated 11.03.2024 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, 9^th Additional District Judge, Surat in Motor Accident Claim Petition (MACP) No. 730 of 2012.

2. The appellant has challenged the impugned award to the extent of Rs.32,01,666/- out of total awarded amount of Rs.1,06,72,221/-, as its insured driver was held 30% negligent for causing accident.

3. The parties will be referred to as per their original position before the Tribunal.

4. Short facts of the case appear to be that

4.1 on 27-02-2012 at about 4:30 to 5:00 a.m. in the morning, when Claimant was traveling from Dhola to Surat as a passenger in Luxury Bus bearing Registration No. GJ-5-Z 2088, which was driven by Opponent No.1 and owned by Opponent No.2 and when he was passing Opp. Shivshakti Hotel in periphery of Manglej Village on National Highway No.8, a Dumper bearing Registration No. GJ-16-W-0048, which was driven by Opponent No.4 and owned by Opponent No.5 was parked on the middle of the road without putting any obstacles or tail lights. As a result, Luxury Bus, which was also being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed with the stationary Dumper from behind. Due to the impact of this accident, Claimant sustained serious and multiple injuries.

4.2 The claimant, having sustained serious injuries developed Paraplegia, filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,00,000/- against the driver, owner and insurance company of both vehicles involved in the accident. The claimant has submitted oral and documentary evidence.

4.3 The opponent No.1 has not chosen to appear before the Tribunal. Opponent No. 2 has appeared through advocate and filed its written statement, whereas opponent No. 3 - insurance company of luxury bus has entered appearance and filed its written statement at Exh.42. So far as opponent Nos. 5 and 6 are concerned, they have appeared through different advocates and filed their independent written statement at Exh.21 and Exh.50 respectively. The opponent No. 4 i.e., driver of dumper bearing registration No. GJ-16-W-0048 was deleted vide order below Exh.37 before Tribunal. None of the opponents have submitted oral evidence.

4.4 After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence, that arose out of the same accident in earlier Claim Petition being M.A.C.P.No. 371 of 2012 decided by Tribunal wherein ratio of negligence amongst two set of drivers has been fixed, following the decision of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Laljibhai Hamirbhai & Ors, reported in 2007 (1) G.L.R. 633, and following principle of res- judicata, the Tribunal found the driver of luxury bus 70% negligent, whereas driver of dumper 30% negligent for causing accident. Thereby, the issue of negligence inter-se between two sets of drivers as for the claimant, was found to be a case of composite negligence.

4.5 It appears from the record that no oral evidence was led by any of the opponents and on the other hand, the claimant has submitted his oral evidence as well as examined three doctors, a Chartered Accountant and Accountant and also submitted various supporting documentary evidence to substantiate his claim made in the claim petition. The following oral and documentary evidence are submitted before the Tribunal.

ORAL EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE