SHABANABANU IMRANKHAN MOHAMMADKHAN PATHAN Vs. SHYAMJI HIRALAL SAKSENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal is filed by the appellant - original claimants under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short M V Act) against the judgment and award dtd. 14/11/2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Auxiliary) & 2nd Additional District Judge, Nadiad. The Tribunal while partly allowing the Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1317 of 2013 granted compensation of Rs.9,26,000.00. Being aggrieved by the same the appellant herein has approached this Court by filing the present appeal.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the claimants along with her children and deceased husband came to India from Saudi Arabia on 27/9/2013 and were residing in their hometown Balasinor. Thereafter, on 18/11/2013 at around 12:00 PM the deceased Imrankhan Pathan was going to meet his friends on a motorcycle and at that time suddenly the truck bearing registration No. UP 8 AT 9813 driven by the opponent No. 1, owned by the opponent No. 2 came from the front on the wrong side of the road in a rash and negligent manner and met with an accident with the motor cycle driven by the deceased Imrankhan Pathan - husband of the present claimant. As a result of the accident the husband of the claimant succumbed to his injuries on the place of incident. Hence, the claimant filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition being registered as Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1317 of 2013 before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Auxiliary) and 2 nd Additional District Judge, Nadiad for compensation.

(3.) Heard Mr. Amit Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the appellant. Mr Joshi, learned advocate submitted that the Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled to Rs.9,26,000.00 towards the amount of compensation. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate submitted that the Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion of calculating the amount that the deceased was earning 2254/- Saudi Arabia Riyal per month. It is submitted that the document in form of a letter dtd. 16/12/2015 which is issued by the employer of the deceased was also produced on record. However, the Court below erred in considering the same as secondary evidence as Exh. 25/1 in the list of documents. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate further submitted that the Tribunal erred in not considering the fact that the future loss of dependency would come to Rs.8,56,800.00. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate does not press Ground- F.