Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2529 (RAJ)

Bano v. Roopsang Hansraj Purohit

2011-11-22

K.S.JHAVERI

body2011
Hon'ble JHAVERI, J.—First Appeal Nos. 371 & 372 of 1985 are filed by the original claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Mehsana in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 594/82 & 186/81. 1.1 First Appeal No. 512 of 1985 is filed by the owner of the truck No. RSZ 6221 on the ground that the Tribunal has made a modification on 12.09.1984 in the final portion of the award dated 06.07.1984 whereby the liability of the insurance company is restricted to Rs. 50000/- only. 2. The appellants being the legal heirs of the deceased Ramzan Suleman & Jenabibi Ramzan had filed claim petitions no. 186/81 & 594/82 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,20,000/- and 60,000/- respectively on account of the death of Shri Ramzan Suleman and Smt. Jenabibi Ramzan while they were travelling from Ahmedabad to Mehsaba on a scooter on 08.01.1981. It is the case of the appellants that a truck bearing registration no. RSZ 6221 collided with the scooter near the bridge of river Khari. Both of them expired as a result of the said accident. 3. Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has attributed contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Shri Ramzan Suleman. He submitted that Shri Suleman was exercising due care while driving the scooter and that the truck had taken a turn to the right side all of a sudden. 4. As a result of hearing and perusal of records, this court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error or illegality in attributing contributory negligence on the part of Shri Ramzan Suleman. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that if the deceased Shri Ramzan Suleman had been more careful the accident could have been avoided. The Tribunal observed that when the driver of the truck wanted to take a turn on the right side at the petrol pump then it can be reasonably believed that when the truck had remained some feet away from the place of the incident he must have driven his truck in the middle of the road to take the turn at the place of incident. The scooterist could have turned his scooter to the right side on seeing the truck taking a turn and could have crossed the truck without any collision. The scooterist could have turned his scooter to the right side on seeing the truck taking a turn and could have crossed the truck without any collision. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings of the Tribunal. The Tribunal in both the claim applications has adduced the evidence on record and granted compensation which is just and proper. The quantum of compensation does not call for any interference by this court. 5. As far as the appeal preferred by the owner of the vehicle is concerned, the policy is produced on record which does not show any infirmity committed by the Tribunal. The award passed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal. Hence the said appeal also is devoid of any merits. 6. In the premises aforesaid, appeals are dismissed. No costs.