SHANTIBEN PARSUBHAI SANGODIA BHIL Vs. PRATAPSINH MANSINH PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Kapadia for the Appellant and learned advocate Ms.Bhaya for Respondent No.3. Respondent No.1 though duly served, remained absent whereas Respondent No.2 is deleted. Perused the record as well as R &P.

(2.) The Appellant herein is original Claimant in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.3530 of 2004 (Old Case No.1795 of 2000) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court at Dahod. He has preferred such claim petition against present Respondents being driver, owner and insurer of motor vehicle No.GJ-20-A-118 because of crush injuries received by her in a vehicular accident by such vehicle on 20.3.2000. She has claimed Rs. 2,50,000/- for the fracture because of injuries on right foot with several other injuries for which she was disabled by 41% of lower extremity. After evidence and considering rival submissions, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 2,12,960/- by impugned judgment and award dated 19.7.2006.

(3.) Since none of the opponent has challenged the award, it becomes clear that there is no issue regarding incident of accident, involvement of the vehicle in such accident and result of such accident as claimed by the appellant - Claimant. Therefore, when appeal is mainly on the ground of quantum of compensation only, I do not see any reason to reproduce the factual details of accident and other evidence with reference to it, since it is well described in the pleading as well as in the impugned judgment, except to recollect that offending vehicle had dashed the appellant - Claimant who was walking on the road and, therefore, she is 3rd party to the opponent and principle of res ipsa locutor would certainly apply in such cases. Therefore, when vehicle involved in the accident was duly insured with the Respondent No.3 herein, they have no option but to compensate the Claimant.