PATEL MANJULABEN RAMESHKUMAR Vs. PATEL RAMESHBHAI VITTALDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the prayers:

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Shri Rakesh R. Patel for the petitioners and learned Advocate Shri G.C.Mazmudar for Respondent No.2.

(3.) Learned Advocate Shri Rakesh R. Patel for the Petitioners has referred to the impugned order and submitted that the Application at Annexure-B was filed by the petitioners / original applicants for claiming the compensation under Section 166 of the Act. The MACT, Patan vide impugned order rejected the said application which has lead to filing of the present petition. Learned Advocate Shri Patel has submitted that the claimants are entitled to have the option and the same aspect has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hansrajbhai v. Kodala and ors, 2001 5 SCC 175. He has further referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mukeshbhai Bhalchandrabhai Jani, Decd. Through heirs Ranjan, 2004 1 GLH 246 and submitted that the same issue was addressed and discussed in this judgment and the contention which was sought to be raised have been negatived. He pointedly referred to the observations: