TEJUBEN DANSINH THAKOR Vs. NASHIMKHAN ISANALIKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Viral Dave, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. R.P. Raval, learned advocate for the respondent no.3 - insurance Company.

(2.) Being aggrieved by and feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 31.01.2017 rendered by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main), Surat in Motor Accident Claim Petition no.339 of 2005, the appellant -original claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement. As a very short question arises in this appeal and the insurance Company has not challenged the liability, presence of respondents no.1 and 2 is not essential. With the consent of the learned advocate for the appellant as well as the learned advocate for the respondent no.3 - insurance Company, the appeal is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

(3.) Facts, which can be culled out from the record of the appeal, are that the accident occurred on 26.12.2004 at about 02:15 p.m. near Gabheni Village. Record indicates that the deceased Akshaybhai was driving Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing registration no. GJ5 BS2555 on the left side of the road and was going from Sachin GIDC to Gabheni Village. At that point of time, a truck bearing registration no. GTO 1644 driven by respondent no.1 herein in a rash and negligent manner that too, on the wrong side dashed with Akshaybhai along with the motorcycle, because of which, Akshaybhai fell down and sustained grievous injuries on head and legs. As the record indicates, the deceased was first admitted to Mahavir Hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries. An FIR bearing CR no.I169/ 2004 came to be registered with Sachin Police Station and the appellant preferred the present claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and claimed compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/. The case of the appellant - original claimant was that the deceased was 19 years old and was earning Rs. 4,000/per month by working in GIDC and was earning about Rs. 30,000/from agriculture income. It was further the case of the appellant that about Rs. 50,000/was spent for the medical expenses. The appellant was examined at Exh.34 and the appellant also relied upon the documentary evidence, such as, FIR Exh.35, Panchnama Exh.36, postmortem note Exh.38 and Bank passbook of the appellant Exh.41. The Tribunal, relying upon the postmortem note Exh.38, came to the conclusion that the deceased was 19 years old and based upon appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the income of the deceased was Rs. 2,500/per month and granted Rs. 2,70,000/as compensation under the head of loss of dependency, Rs. 10,000/as medical expenses, Rs. 20,000/towards loss of estate, love and affection and Rs. 5,000/as funeral expenses and thus, awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,05,000/along with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellant - original claimant has preferred this appeal.