In motor accident claims, documentary evidence such as the panchnama of the scene of accident is pivotal in determining contributory negligence; riding on the wrong side of a one-way road constitutes negligence, justifying a reduction in compensation.

ORAL JUDGMENT

[1.0] Present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) is filed by the appellant – The United Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 02.07.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Jamnagar (for short “learned Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.129 of 2013, whereby the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allow the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.44,89,530/- to the original claimants.

[2.0] The brief facts leading to filing of present appeal is as follows:

[2.1] On 02.01.2013, deceased Bharatbhai Ramjibhai Changani Vora (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) was going on Motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-10-BF-4431 from GIDC Phase-II on left side of the road, slowly, carefuly and when he reached at the place of accident, one Motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-3-AG-4952 came in very rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased as a result of which deceased sustained serious injuries and was immediately hospitalized however, died on 15.05.2013 i.e. four months after the accident. Therefore, the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased filed MACP No.129/2013 seeking compensation of Rs.75,00,000/-.

[2.2] After considering the evidence produced and adduced, the learned Tribunal held the opponent No.1 - driver of Motorcycle No.GJ-3-AG-4952 (hereinafter referred to as “opponent No.1”) solely negligent for the accident and was pleased to award Rs.44,89,530/- to the original claimants. Being aggrieved with the finding of the learned Tribunal holding opponent No.1 to be solely negligent for the accident, appellant herein – original opponent No.3 – The United Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed the present First Appeal as well as on the ground of exorbitant compensation being awarded to the original claimants.

[3.0] Though served, respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 have chosen not to appear before this Court.

[4.0] Learned advocate Ms. Masumi Nanavaty appearing for the appellant – insurance company has submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in fastening legal liability solely on original opponent No.3 – insurance company of Motorcycle No.GJ-3-AG-4952 as the accident took place between two motorcycles and deceased i.e. driver of Motorcycle No.GJ-10-BF-4431 was equally negligent in causing the accident and therefore, she has submitted that learned Tribunal ought to have considered atleast contributory negligence of the deceased motorcyclist. She has further submitted that the opponent No.1 appeared before the learned Tribunal and tendered his oral evidence though learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence and discarding the documentary evidence produced on record i.e. panchnama of scene of accident, which is admissible document, learned Tribunal has ignored the fact that the deceased motorcyclist was coming from opposite direction on wrong side and has come to conclusion that the said version is belated and an afterthought and therefore, has committed an error in holding the opponent No.1 i.e. driver of Motorcycle No.GJ-3-AG-4952 to be solely negligent for the accident. She has further argued that the learned Tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation which is required to be interfered with. Hence, she has requested to allow the present appeal.

[5.0] Learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah appearing for the original claimants has opposed the present appeal by submitting that in absence of any evidence, learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence in written statement and no defence has been raised or taken by the opponent No.1 and whatever evidence led is at the instance of the present appellant which is nothing but an afterthought and learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence in holding that the deceased motorcyclist was not negligent for the accident. Hence, questi