SAVIBEN VALABHAI AHIR (EXPIRED) Vs. MAHADEVBHAI KHODABHAI AYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Hemal Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have made a prayer to quash and set aside the order dtd. 20/7/2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhuj, in M.A.C. M.A. No. 467 of 2018 as well as M.A.C. M.A. No. 513 of 2018 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 909 of 2016 with a further direction to the learned Tribunal to pay entire amount falling to the share of the original claimant No.1 - Saviben Valabhai Ahir and original claimant No.4 - Lumbhabhai Ganeshbhai Ahir to the present petitioners.

(2.) By an order dtd. 6/4/2022 this Court had called for the report from the Nazir Department of the MACT, Kachchh at Bhuj, and according to the report, the New India Assurance Company Limited had deposited the amount of Rs.6,21,939.00 on 6/9/2012. The payment order was already issued vide O.W.No. 5366 of 2012 on 29/9/2012, and since the amount was not withdrawn by the concerned applicant, the same was kept in Fixed Deposit Receipt as per the direction of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Circular No. 2622 of 2009 dtd. 6/10/2009 and currently too this amount is in the fixed deposit receipt, and as per the report, the total sum is Rs.7,74,334.00. It appears that the tribunal had already considered the payment order dtd. 29/9/2012 and it also appears that at the relevant time the present petitioners had not informed the tribunal about the death of their mother dtd. 3/5/2012 and subsequently also the date of death of Lumbhabhai Ahir of 25/5/2013 who is the grandfather of the present petitioner. It appears that the payment order was already passed on 29/9/2012 and the grandfather was alive at the relevant time who failed to withdraw the money and even the petitioners have failed to inform the court prior to the payment order of the death of the mother. However, it is equally true that after the payment order on 29/9/2012 the petitioners have failed to ask for modification in the payment order declaring the death of the claimants that they being the heirs of the deceased claimants. Even the present petitioners were claimants; thus their share would have been determined in the payment order.

(3.) Since the claimant No.4 being the father of the deceased not being the dependent of the deceased; thus Jivanbhai Lumbhabhai Ayer and Ranabhai Lumbhabhai Ayer could not claim the compensation money as dependents of the original deceased. Thus, considering this fact, the amount as per the payment order to Lumbhabhai Ganeshbhai Ahir be paid to the present petitioners as the grandson in equal proportion.