NIRANJANKUMAR GIRISHBHAI PATEL Vs. BABUBHAI HIRABHAI VATHELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. Learned advocate Mr. Maulik Shelat waives service for the respondent No. 3 - insurance company. Though served, none appears for the respondent No. 2 and the notice to the respondent No. 1 has remained unserved. Nonetheless, the respondent Nos. 1 an 2 had not appeared before the learned Tribunal also.

(2.) Considering the controversy involved in the matter, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties present, the appeal is taken up for final hearing today.

(3.) This is an appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arising out of the judgment and award dtd. 29/11/2011 rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Banaskantha at Deesa (the Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 3 of 2013 (claim petition), whereby, the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the said claim petition.