KALAVATI MUKUTSINH DIVAKAR Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners against an order dtd. 21/3/2023 passed in M.A.C.M.A No. 87 of 2023 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Judge, City Sessions Court No. 6, Ahmedabad City (the Tribunal), whereby, the Tribunal has rejected the said application requesting to disburse the amount of compensation awarded in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 325 of 2017 in favour of the petitioner No. 1 herein in view of sad demise of original claimant No. 1 - Mukutsinh Harilal Divakar (Dhobi) on 27/2/2020.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Tirth Nayak for the petitioners submitted that during the course of trial, the original claimant No. 1, the father of the deceased son had died and the claimant No. 2 is the mother of the deceased. It is submitted that since other heirs were not the dependent, they were not joined during the trial, however, the death of claimant No. 1 could not be informed and hence, the learned Tribunal has apportioned the amount equally between the original claimants.

(3.) The claim petition was filed by the parents on the death of son. The claimant mother could not inform the Tribunal at the relevant time about the death of her husband. It is stated that there would not be any change in the compensation amount. The learned Tribunal has apportioned the money in equal ratio to both the parents. Now, since the father has died, the money would go to the claimant No. 2 - mother and the children not being dependent, would not be entitled to the share in the compensation money which has been granted for the vehicular accident. The learned Tribunal ought not to have insisted for the Pedigree, which as per the circular of the Revenue Department could be granted only on the property falling in the name of the deceased and further, if at all the learned Tribunal has insisted for Pedigree, the application would have been rejected by the competent authority as they would not be in a position to even grant so in a matter which is subjudice before the Court. The learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that it was a case of death of son and the mother would be the dependent.