JITENDRA TRILOKCHANDRA SHAH Vs. NOT JOINED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the original claimant to make a grievance that his claim under the head of future loss of income has not been considered and no compensation is awarded under the said head. In the process the appellant has challenged the judgment and award made by MACT, Panchmahals at Godhra in MACP No. 415 of 1986 dated 30th August, 1993.

(2.) At the outset it is made clear that the respondents i.e., original opponents have neither preferred any substantive appeal nor filed any cross objections in this appeal to challenge the findings that have been given by the Claims Tribunal in favour of the appellant. In the present appeal, original opponent no. 1 who happened to be the driver of the offending vehicle has not been joined as party. Respondent no. 2 the owner has not been served with the notice of admission of the appeal. The appeal was admitted on 6 th April, 1995. Since earlier notice, immediately after the admission of the appeal to final hearing, was not served this Court by order dated 8th August, 2006, issued fresh notice to respondents no. 2 and 3 making it returnable on 12 th September, 2006. The record shows that even the fresh notice could not be served on respondents no. 2, but respondent no. 3 the insurance company has been served. The endorsement shows that notice to respondent no. 2 could not be served because he was not to be found. The accident in question took place on 25 th October, 1985 and the claim petition is of the year 1986. It is, therefore, obvious that it will not be possible for the appellant now to locate respondent no. 2 and serve the notice of this appeal on him. Here as stated above, the findings that have been given in favour of the appellant have not been challenged either by respondent no. 2 or respondent no. 3. The question is only with regard to future loss of income, meaning thereby, if the appeal is allowed, additional compensation is required to be paid to the appellant. Naturally, the insurance company will be responsible to pay compensation. Hence, technically speaking respondent no. 2 is required to be served, but considering the aforesaid circumstances and also the fact that the real contesting party, the insurance company which is represented through its lawyer, there is no need to allow this appeal to linger on for indefinite period, more particularly, when the accident is of the year 1985 and the MAC Petition of the year 1986. Hence, with the consent of learned advocate for the insurance company the matter is finally heard.

(3.) The accident in question took place on 25 th October, 1985 at about 7:00 a.m. The appellant was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration no. GUB 822 from Godhra to Devgadhbaria for his work. According to him he was driving his vehicle at moderate speed and correct side of the road. When he reached near Vinod restaurant, Piplod village, the truck owned by respondent no. 2 and driven by his driver suddenly appeared from the by -lane and knocked the appellant down. It was driven in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of the same, the appellant sustained serious injuries on his left leg. He was immediately rushed to Godhra and admitted in the hospital of Dr. Narendra Pajwani. Subsequently he was removed to Baroda and admitted in the hospital of Dr. Suketu Trivedi, a well -known Orthopedic Surgeon of Baroda. According to the appellant, he at the time of accident was working as junior clerk in the Bank of Baroda and was discharging duty in the head office at Baroda. On account of the injuries suffered by him, he ultimately, lodged claim of Rs.1 lakh with MACT at Godhra.