SHANTABEN Vs. YAKUBBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shantaben widow of deceased Kantibhai Punjabhai Vankar and others, appellants-original claimants (petitioners) have filed this appeal under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the judgement and award dated 28.8.1985 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Himmatnagar, Sabarkantha in M.A.C. Petition No. 30 of 1983. By the impugned award, the Tribunal has held that the claimants are entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 1,36,000/- from all opponents, viz., opponent No. 1 Yakubbhai Ibrahimbhai Patel and opponent No. 2 Faquirmohmed Noormohmed Memon with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application. However, as regards Insurance Company, opponent No. 3 is concerned, the Tribu has held that the liability of the Insurance Company, is restricted to Rs. 50,000/- with proportionate costs and interest only. The Tribunal further held that all the opponents are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation and to bear their own costs and the rest of the claim of the claimants is rejected. The Tribunal passed order for investment / disbursement also.

(2.) The appellant-original claimants contended before this Court that the appellants in the claim petition claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-. As the learned Judge has awarded only Rs. 1,36,000/- and directed respondent No. 3 the New India Insurance Company Limited to answer the judgement to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- with proportionate costs and interest. That is how the appellants have filed this present appeal. However, in the memo of appeal they have confined their claim to additional damages of Rs. 14,000/- only and further prayed that the Insurance Company should be made liable to answer the entire judgement i.e. whatever claim this Court may allow in this appeal. 1). The original memo of appeal was filed somewhere in January, 1986. However, subsequently the appellants have amended the memo of appeal and stated that if the judgement of the Tribunal is to be upheld i.e. the liability of the Insurance Company is limited then the appellants challenge the constitutional validity of Section 95(2)(a) and (b) of the Act on the ground that the said provisions are arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable and amount to hostile discrimination in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the constitutional validity of Section 95 was also challenged by way of amendment. The said amendment was filed somewhere in January, 1989. II. BASIC FACTS:

(3.) We will first set out relevant and material facts giving rise to this appeal which are as under: