LAWS(GJH)-2020-3-145

ANITABEN JITENDRAKUMAR JIVANI Vs. THAKOR BALWANTJI CHIKUJI

Decided On March 04, 2020
Anitaben Jitendrakumar Jivani Appellant
V/S
Thakor Balwantji Chikuji Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Patan dated 19.07.2018 in MACP No.226 of 2010.

(2.) The following facts emerge from the record of the appeal. 2.0. That the accident took place on 25.4.2010, at about 2.30 p.m. It is the case of the original claimants that deceased Jitendrakumar was driving the motorcycle and returning from Unja to Patan and when he reached near Digdi ? Dharpur road, one Jeep No. GJ ?12 ?P ?6447 came on wrong side and dashed with motorcycle. Due to the said accident, Jitendrakumar died on the spot. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep driver. The FIR was lodged with the jurisdictional police station and the appellants ? original claimants preferred the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act and claim compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs. The record indicates that it was the case of the respondents - original claimants that deceased was aged about 33 years and was doing business of "Mehul Traders" and "Bhagwati Sales" and earning Rs.12000/ ?. That the claimant no.1 had tendered her examination in chief at Exh.30 and also produced the documentary evidence to prove the accident as well as the income of the deceased. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record was pleased to pass the impugned award and awarded Rs.22,42,980/ ? towards compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% from 19.07.2010 till its realization. However, the learned Tribunal held that the deceased was negligent to the extent of 10% in causing the accident and thereby deducted 10% amount from the total compensation of Rs.24,92,200/ ?.

(3.) Heard Mr. Dev Patel, learned advocate for Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate for the appellants, Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent no.3 and Mr. Nagesh Sood, learned advocate for the respondent no.5. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of other respondents.