MOHANLAL MANCHHARAM BENGALI Vs. KULDIPSINH NIRMALSINH SARDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before the commencement of the hearing, it was stated that appellant No. 1 father of the deceased being original claimant No. 1, had expired on 15.9.1991. Therefore his name is sought to be deleted by the learned advocate for the appellants and we have permitted, accordingly. Since appellant No. 2 is the old mother being original claimant No. 2, she would be entitled to compensation as a sole claimant.

(2.) Unfortunate parents, who have been in the December days of life awaiting the final outcome, despite lapse of 1 1/2 decades from the date of mishap and resultant claim of the claim made on account of unfortunate, untimely, demise of their earning, unmarried son aged 28 years whose life was cut short, at the cruel hands of the providence in a road accident, who were the original appellants before us in this appeal, now mother is the sole appellant, under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as `the Old Act'), challenging the meagre, sundry, petty, unrealistic and insignificant, consolidated amount of Rs. 31,500/awarded by the Tribunal in MACP No. 572 of 1982 in a common judgement rendered, on 21.4.1985, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Surat. What a mockery of system? Well, let us come main route.

(3.) Deceased Kaushik Mohanlal son of the appellants original claimants was travelling in metador-tempo bearing registration No. GRO 5506 driven by deceased driver Gopalbhai Kantilal in course of his service-tour from Baroda to Bombay, who knew it would be a last voyage?. The deceased was working in Jyoti Limited in Energy Division, at Baroda. Metador-tempo was hired by the employer of the deceased. It was proceeding towards Bombay side from Baroda. The deceased was deputed by the employer for the purpose of erection of plant. One Ratansinh was, also, travelling in the said tempo on the day of accident. The accident occurred, on 13.5.1982.