Honourable Mr. Justice KS Jhaveri
1. First Appeal No. 429 of 1992 is filed by the original claimant Jashbhai Purshottambhai Patel seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded to him by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Kheda at Nadiad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 350 of 1986 vide award dated 22.07.1991 whereby amount of Rs. 49000/-was awarded as compensation.
1.1 First Appeal No. 430 of 1992 is filed by the original claimant Ravjibhai Chaturbhai Patel seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded to him by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Kheda at Nadiad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 396 of 1986 vide award dated 22.07.1991 whereby amount of Rs. 55000/-was awarded as compensation.
1.2 First Appeal No. 148 of 1992 is filed by the insurance company of the motorcycle being aggrieved by the award dated 22.07.1991 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Kheda at Nadiad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 396 of 1986 whereby amount of Rs. 55000/-was awarded as compensation to the claimant.
2. It is the case of the claimant of Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 396 of 1986 that on 26.06.1985 at about 10.30 pm they were riding on a motor cycle bearing registration no. GUB 3958. The applicant of Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 396 of 1985 was a pillion rider and the applicant of Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 350 of 1986 was riding the said vehicle. They were going from Asoda Chokdi to Anklav. As they reached village Manjkuva, the original opponent no. 1 -driver came with his jeep bearing registration no. GTM 4513 on the wrong side and dashed with the motorcycle. The injured fell down and the motorcycle was also badly damaged. The original opponent no. 2 is the owner of the jeep and the original opponent no. 3 is the Insurance Company of the jeep.
2.1 It is the case of the claimant of Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 350 of 1986 that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the applicant of Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 396 of 1986 wherein the original opponent no. 5 is the owner of the motorcycle and the original opponent no. 6 is the Insurance Company of the motorcycle.
3. Learned advocates appearing for the claimants in First Appeals No. 429 & 430 of 1992 submitted that number of operations were required to be performed on the leg of the appellants. They submitted that in both the cases the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain shock and suffering was less considering that the appellant of First Appeals No. 429 & 430 of 1992 had to remain in hospital as indoor patient for around 3 and 2.5 months respectively. They submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding the amounts claimed by the appellants in the claim petitions on different counts.
3.1 Mr. Thomas, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Nanavati for the appellant Insurance Company in First Appeal No. 148 of 1992 submitted that on the date the accident occurred, the M.V. Act, 1939 is applicable and section 95 thereof does not statutorily cover the pillion rider on the motorcycle nor the insurance company under the policy covers a pillion rider of a motorcycle. He submitted that the Tribunal misinterpreted the policy on record and also the Tariff Circular Ex. 133 and wrongly awarded compensation to the pillion rider of the motorcycle.
4. This court has heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the papers on record, more particularly, the impugned award of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered the disability certificate issued by the doctor to the claimants and taking into consideration the monthly income of the claimants as per the evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal has awarded compensation which is just and proper. For the claimant of Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 396 of 1985, the Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs. 1500/-as stated by him and therefore taking into account the permanent disability of 10% for the whole body, the Tribunal came to an amount of Rs. 28800/-as future loss of income. Rs. 9500/-was awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering.
4.1 As far as the claimant of Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 350 of 1985 is concerned, the Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs. 1500/-as stated by him and therefore taking into account the permanent disability of 25% for the whole body, the Tribunal came to an amount of Rs. 72000/-as future loss of income. Rs. 9500/-was awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering. I do not find any infirmity in the amount awarded as compensation under the various heads.
4.2 As far as the insurance company is concerned, it is required to be noted that the contention raised by the insurance company cannot sustain in view of the fact that Divisional Manager of the insurance company, one Shri Parekh in his deposition Ex. 130 has admitted that the policy Ex. 131 is issued by his Vadodara Office and this policy is a comprehensive policy. He has specifically stated that the risk of third party is covered vide Ex. 131. Even otherwise there is no mention regarding the effective date of the tariff circular at Ex. 133. Therefore this court is not inclined to accept the contention of the appellant insurance company.
5. In view of the foregoing reasons, the appellants in all the three appeals failed to make out a case for interference by this court. The award of the Tribunal does not call for any modification by this Court on any ground. Appeals are devoid of any merits and are dismissed accordingly. No costs.
