CHAUDHARY PURIBEN RAMANBHAI Vs. PATEL ANILKUMAR ISHWARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and on the issue of negligence, the appellants being legal heirs and representatives of deceased Ramanbhai Chaudhari, who died in a road accident, have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and review of issue of negligence.

(2.) The alleged incident took place on 6/4/2000. Deceased Pravinbhai was hit by the Jeep in question. As a result of which, decease Pravinbhai was died. On the unfortunate day of accident, the deceased and his companion were passing on Mahadevpura Gavada Road, Dist.: Mehsana and due to nature of call, the vehicle upon which they were riding, was parked beside the road and Becharbhai had gone to secluded place, whereas, deceased Pravinbhai was went for urination and thereafter, he was standing beside the scooter. At that time, the Jeep in question came from the opposite direction being driven by its driver in a careless manner and hit the deceased. The widow and two sons, being legal heirs of deceased Pravinbhai filed Claim Petition being MACP No. 715 of 2000 before the MAC Tribunal (Aux) at Mehsana against the driver, owner and insurance company of the jeep, claiming compensation of Rs.14,00,000.00. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that, the deceased himself contributed to the occurrence of the alleged accident and fixed 30% his contributory negligence. So far as quantum is concerned, the Tribunal awarded, Rs.6,06,000.00 to the claimants and after deducting 30% from the amount, the Award to the tune of Rs.4,24,000.00 with interest at the rate of 7.5% is passed vide its award and judgment dtd. 23/7/2009.

(3.) The claimants - appellants have preferred this appeal on the grounds that, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed contributory negligence to the deceased and findings to this effect are contrary to the settled law on the issue of strict liability. The enhancement of the compensation sought on the ground that, the various income of the deceased having not taken into consideration while computing the amount of dependency loss.