In cases of composite negligence, liability is joint and several, allowing claimants to recover full compensation from any joint tort-feasor.

ORAL ORDER

The captioned appeals are filed by the two different victims of the self-same road accident. First Appeal No.3226 of 2013 challenges the judgment and award rendered in MACP No.1423 of 2008 on 28/03/2013 by the MACT (AUX) Panchmahal wherein the tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.1,70,300/- in the ratio of 50% to be recovered from the opponents no.1 to 3 and opponent no.4 and 5 jointly and severally with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. Whereas First Appeal No.2116 of 2013 challenges judgment and award rendered in MACP No.1422 of 2008 on 08/05/2013 by the MACT (AUX) Panchmahal wherein the tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.54,750/- to be recovered from the opponents no.1 to 3 jointly and severally with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 06/07/2008 while the org. claimants alongwith their family members were going for social work in the Wagon R Maruti Car bearing Registration No.GJ-18AB-9793 at that time near Dev Chokdi Road, opponent no.1 in rash and negligent manner dashed the Innova Car bearing Registration No.GJ-17N-5700 of the ownership of opponent no.1 with the car of the claimants and thereby caused road accident wherein the victims have received various injuries in the nature of fracture etc.

2.1 Thereafter, the two claim petitions as noted herein above were filed seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- respectively wherein at the end of full-fledged hearing and considering the oral and documentary evidence the learned tribunal has passed the order of compensation as stated herein above which has given rise to the present appeals.

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Hakim for the org. claimants and learned Advocate Mr.Mehta for the insurance company.

4. Insofar as First Appeal No.3226 of 20013 is concerned, it is sought to be submitted that claimant for his own fault could not produce the best evidence before the tribunal as he was the IT payer but for the reasons he could not produce the IT return. He would submit that CA No.1674 of 2016 in FA No.3226 of 2013 is filed seeking production of documents in the form of income tax acknowledgment receipt which came to be allowed as per order dated 29/04/2016 and therefore if the claimant is given one more chance to lead evidence, the tribunal may have the best evidence to assess the just, fair and equitable compensation. He would therefore submit to remand the matter for fresh hearing before the tribunal and to allow the appeal.

5. As against that, learned Advocate Mr.Mehta would submit that fullest opportunity was given to the claimant to produce the income tax return but the said opponent was not availed of by the claimant and therefore claimant should not be given chance to fill-up the lacuna in reading the evidence. He would submit that tribunal after considering the evidence placed before it has reached to the just and fair compensation and therefore the appeal may be dismissed.

6. Insofar as First Appeal No.2116 of 2013 is concerned, learned advocate Mr.Hakim for the appellant would submit that tribunal has granted lessor compensation in comparison to the injuries received by the claimant. He would submit that though no specific requirement is there to recalculate the entire compensation but considering the facts and circumstances of the face, equitable compensation is required to be granted. He would therefore submit to enhance the compensation.

7. As against that, learned Advocate Mr.Raval for the insurance company would submit that tribunal after considering the evidence on record has reached to the just and fair compensation which is within the bracket of definition of just and fair compensation and theref