Decided on January 22,2021

Sudip Paul Appellant
Ratan Patowari Respondents


Akil Kureshi,J. - (1.) This Appeal is filed by the original claimant to challenge an award dated 29.06.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in T.S. (MAC) No.46 of 2018.
(2.) Brief facts are as under: On 12.10.2017 when the claimant was travelling on his motor cycle, a jeep insured by the respondent No.3-insurance company came from the opposite side and collided with the motor cycle causing injuries to the claimant. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,44,287.50 to the claimant. The Tribunal's assessment of lost of the claimant was Rs.2,88,575.00, however, on the ground that the claimant was responsible for contributory negligence to the extent of 50%. Only half of the amount was awarded by way of compensation. Following observations of the Tribunal may be noted: '9.3 As observed in issue no.1 both the claimant and the driver of commander jeep equally contributed to the accident so the liability of the driver of the commander jeep vehicle is only 50%. But as the commander jeep had valid insurance coverage on the date of accident so the liability to pay 50% compensation for the commander jeep vehicle is shifted upon the insurer i.e., the OP No.3. Claimant did not make the owner and insurer of the motor bike bearing No.TR03-F-5653 as party in this case, so he is entitled to only 50% of the compensation. 9.4. Thus, in view of the aforesaid circumstances it is held that the claimant is only entitled to Rs.1,44,287.50 (One Lakh Forty Four Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Seven and fifty paisa), i.e., 50% of the total amount of compensation of Rs.2,88,575.00.'
(3.) I have perused the award and the evidence on record. In the impugned award, the Tribunal has never specifically come to a conclusion that there was contributory negligence on part of the claimant and that the extent of such contributory negligence was 50%. Independently of the observations of the Tribunal I have examined the evidence on record. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1. In his deposition he had stated that the accident occurred because a jeep which was coming from the opposite direction was being driven at a high speed and that is how it dashed with his vehicle. There is no worthwhile cross-examination of this witness for the insurance company. I have been informed even the charge sheet was filed against the driver of the jeep at the end of investigation. Significantly, the driver of the vehicle, who would have been the best person to state about the nature of accident, was not examined by the insurance company.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.