MENABEN SULEMANBHAI UMARBHAI Vs. CHANDUBHAI BHAICHANDBHAI BHANGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OUT of the appellants, appellant no.1 - mother is stated to have passed away and, hence, the appeals as far as she is concerned stand abated. As for appellant no.2, who was aged three years in 1983 is supposed to have become major and learned counsel for the appellant has argued the appeals on his behalf.

(2.) THE appeals are preferred from the common judgment dated 22 -10 -1986 of MACT (Main), Palanpur, in MACP No.244 of 1983 and MACP No.245 of 1983. The first petition No.244 of 1983 was made under Section 92 A of the erstwhile Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for immediate relief of Rs.15,000/ - and the other petition was made for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/ -. Conducting both the petitions and deciding them together, the Tribunal has recorded the findings that although the deceased had died out of accident involving the vehicle driven by respondent no.1 and owned by respondent no.2, the driver was not negligent. The Tribunal also observed that there was no satisfactory evidence to show that appellant no.2 was the son of the deceased and that appellant no.1 was the guardian of that minor boy. However, on perusal of the evidence on record, more particularly, deposition of Fejmohmed at Exh.17, it was clearly established that the minor boy was residing with the deceased father even as his mother had been divorced and she had married another person. Thus, it was fairly clear that even in absence of negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle, liability to pay compensation under Section 92 A had arisen and appellant no.2 was entitled to claim that amount.

(3.) APPARENTLY , the Claims Tribunal has completely failed to entertain the claim of the appellants under Section 92 A and it has been rejected without any discussion in that regard.