The court held that sole negligence of the offending vehicle's driver is established when the FIR, charge sheet, and panchnama support the claimant's version and the insurance company fails to provide rebuttal evidence by examining the driver.

JUDGMENT

1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 29.06.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Sabarkantha at Himatnagar in MACP No.363/2006, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.9,64,900/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.

2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal are that on 16.02.2006 at about 07:45 p.m., the claimant-Mr. Jitubhai alias Jitendrakumar Chandulal Soni was going towards Himatnagar from Idar by driving a Chevrolet car bearing registration no.GJ-9-M-5399. When he reached at the place of accident, the respondent no.2 herein came by driving his Tata truck bearing registration no.GJ-9-V-2456 in rash and negligent manner and took turn towards village Tejpura without giving any signal or indication and dashed with the said car, in which the claimant was travelling. Due to the impact of the said accident, the claimant-Mr. Jitubhai alias Jitendrakumar Chandulal Soni sustained serious injuries, including fracture injuries. It is also the case of the original claimant that at the time of accident, he was aged about 46 years and was gainfully engaged in the business of catering and tent decoration and thereby earning a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.12,00,000/- per annum. Therefore, the claim petition for seeking the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- came to be filed.

3. On being served, the appellant/insurance company filed its written statement at Exh.15, thereby denying all the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for rejection of the claim petition.

4. Having considered the pleadings, evidence led by the respective parties and the submissions canvassed by the respective parties, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.9,64,900/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellant/insurance company challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground of negligence.

6. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

7. Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/insurance company vehemently submitted that the accident was caused by the driver of the car bearing registration no.GJ-9-M-5399; however, the learned Tribunal without appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, held that the driver of the truck bearing registration no.GJ-9-V-2456 was solely negligent for causing the accident. He further submitted that the finding returned by the learned Tribunal is manifestly erroneous and contrary to the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. He submitted that it is head-on collision, therefore, both the drivers of the offending vehicles have contributed for causing the accident. Therefore, he submitted that both the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident ought to have been held contributorily negligent for causing the accident. Hence, the finding returned by the learned Tribunal is required to be reversed.

8. Per contra, Mr. M.T.M. Hakim, learned counsel appearing on behalf of original claimant/respondent no.1 herein vehemently submitted that the FIR came to be lodged against the driver of the offending truck. He further submitted that after completion of the investigation, the investigating officer has also filed the charge sh