STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MOHANBHAI JIVRAM PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to the correctness of the judgment and award dated 2nd May, 1998 rendered in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 205 of 1983 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Banaskantha, Palanpur by which the claim petition filed by respondents-claimants No.2, 4 and 5 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants') to recover compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of untimely demise of Sureshbhai who died in the vehicular accident has been partly allowed and thereby the claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs. 60,160/- together with interest @ 12% from the date of application till realization with proportionate cost of the application and accordingly the appellants were directed to deposit the said amount in the Tribunal.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that Tractor bearing No.G.R.R. 9360 owned by GIDC was returning after unloading the same and behind it a tanker bearing No.G.R.R. 6125 was tagged and on that tractor, Sureshkumar, son of respondent No.1-Mohanbhai was sitting as a labourer. The said tractor was going towards Ambaji and was driven by Ashok kumar-original opponent No.1 rashly and negligently and in excessive speed and at the spot of the incident the driver lost control and as a result thereof Sureshkumar was thrown off on the road and sustained injuries and died on the spot. As per the averments made in the petition deceased, Sureshkumar was aged 22 years and was hale and hearty and he had no vices . He was engaged in a diamond factory as labourer and was earning Rs.700/- per month and claimants were depending on the income of the deceased. They, therefore, claimed total compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest and proportionate costs from the original opponents driver, owner and the Insurance Company of the vehicle involved in the accident.

(3.) The claim petition was resisted by the respondents by filing separate written statements. On behalf of the State of Gujarat, it was averred that Ashok kumar was not authorised to drive the tractor at the relevant time and, therefore, the State of Gujarat cannot be held responsible. Negligence is also denied by the State.