DHULIBEN Vs. MAHMADIYA AMIRMIYA MALEK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the original claimants is directed against the judgment and order dated January 27, 1978, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kaira at Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"), by which their claim petition claiming compensation for the death of deceased Lalbhai Mangalbhai (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased") who was killed in a vehicular accident at about 5.30 P.M. on March 6, 1977, has been rejected.

(2.) THE case of the appellants is that respondent No. 1 original opponent No. 1 was driving bus No. GTH 4127 of the second respondent Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation from Ransol to Anand on March 6, 1977. When he was at a distance of about one furlong from Chikhodra at about 5.30 P.M. he knocked down the deceased by driving the bus rashly and negligently. The appellants contend that they are entitled to claim compensation or damages to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- from the respondents for the death of the deceased, who was earning Rs. 400/- per month at the time of his death.

(3.) THE Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the appellants had failed to prove that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus on the part of respondent No. 1. In the view it took, the question of determining compensation did not survive. Flowever, the Tribunal held that even if the appellants were entitled to claim compensation for the death of the deceased, such compensation would be Rs. 27,000/- for the loss of dependency benefit and Rs. 3000/- for the loss of expectation of life and thus in all Rs. 30,000/-. The Tribunal also proceeded to apportion the said amount amongst the appellants. However, since in its view the accident had not occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 1, the claim application made by the appellants deserved to be dismissed. In the result, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application made by the appellants. Being aggrieved by the rejection of their application, the appellants have come up in appeal before us.