KIRTI Vs. RAJENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern the disposal of M.A. No. 260 of 1998, Kirti v. Rajendra and M.A. No. 261 of 1998, Tejubai v. Rajendra, as both appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 20.11.1997 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Nimad, Mandleshwar, in Claim Case No. 7 of 1996.

(2.) The case of the claimants-appellants was that on 7.6.1995, they were travelling in jeep No. MP 10-9860 owned by the respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 2 drove it rashly and negligently. There was collision between this vehicle and a truck coming from the opposite direction at high speed, as a result of which Tejubai sustained injuries on her right hand while Kirti got her right leg fractured. They were admitted in T. Choithram Hospital and Tejubai's right hand and Kirti's right leg were amputated. Tejubai had filed Claim Petition No. 9 of 1996 seeking compensation of Rs. 8,05,000. Kirti had claimed Rs. 7,30,000 as compensation in Claim Case No. 7 of 1996 against the respondents. The respondents resisted the claim and pleaded that the claim was not maintainable as the owner, driver and insurer of the truck were not made party. The Tribunal found that the drivers of both vehicles were equally negligent for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,13,000 to Tejubai and Rs. 1,05,000 to Kirti but directed the respondents to pay 50 per cent of the above sum with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The claimants have preferred these appeals for enhancement of compensation amount.

(3.) Mr. Rajpal, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the Tribunal fell in error in holding that the respondents were liable to pay 50 per cent of the compensation amount. He also contended that the amount of compensation is also on lower side. On the other hand, Mr. Mandloi, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that the amount awarded to the claimants is on higher side and it deserves reduction. He further submitted that the Tribunal rightly found the respondents liable to pay 50 per cent of the compensation amount.