THAKORE KANTIJI AMRAJI Vs. PRAMODKUMAR AMRUTLAL PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant who was original claimant no.2 in MACP No.2662/2002, preferred this appeal challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and award dated 15/03/2010 rendered by learned MACT (Aux.), Patan in the aforementioned Claim Petition, whereby, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant- original claimant no.2.

(2.) THE short facts leading to this appeal are that in a vehicular accident, one Pravinbhai, the son of original claimant no.1- Somalben and brother of appellant- original claimant no.2- Kantiji died. Both Somalben, the mother of deceased so also the appellant- claimant no.2 Kantiji preferred the aforementioned claim petition against the Owner and Insurance Company of the vehicle involved in the accident and claimed Rs.5,00,000.00 by way of compensation. It transpires that during the pendency of said petition, original claimant no.1- Somalben, the mother of the deceased so also the mother of appellant-claimant no.2, expired. Since the appellant- claimant no.2 was the only heir of the deceased, the name of the claimant no.1- Somalben came to be deleted from the cause-title of the original claim petition and the claim petition proceeded further by the appellant- original claimant no.2 Kantiji. It transpires that the Tribunal recorded the oral evidence of appellant-claimant no.2 and also examined the evidence of the witness for the claimant. Ultimately, considering the Para-11 in the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal relying upon the decision of 'Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another' reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, came to the conclusion that perhaps the appellant-claimant no.2 herein must be earning member in the family and therefore, he may not be dependent upon the income of deceased brother Pravinbhai, who died in the accident and even observed that perhaps the appellant- claimant no.2 might not be residing with deceased Pravinbhai and therefore, dismissed the claim petition in TOTO.

(3.) HEARD Mr. Shah learned advocate for the respondent no.1- the owner as well as Ms. Rahevar learned advocate for the respondent no.2- Insurance Company.