MOHSINKHAN MISKINKHAN PATHAN Vs. GANCHI YUNUSBHAI ISABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and award rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Panchmahals, at Godhra, in MACP No. 1797/05 dated 04.05.2015, the appellant-soriginal claimants have preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) The facts on record indicate that deceased Miskinkhan on 05.09.2003 was passing by Baska village and at that time, respondent no.1 who was driving jeep bearing registration no. GH6G450 came in rash and negligent manner and in an excessive speed and dashed with deceased Miskinkhan. The record indicates that deceased Miskinkhan sustained injuries and succumbed to such injuries. The FIR came to be lodged with Halol Police Station being IC. R. No. 266/03. The claimants thereafter firstly filed claim petition under section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/and thereafter, enhanced it to Rs. 10,00,000/. The claimants led evidence through Fatemabibi at exhibit 16 and also relying upon documentary evidence such as FIR at exhibit 22, panchnama of the scheme of accident at exhibit 23 and 36, inquest panchnama at exhibit 24, PM report at exhibit 25 and other relevant papers including driving license and insurance policy. The appellants claimants also relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in claim petition no.35/04 at exhibit 37. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award was pleased to partly allow the application and award Rs. 5,60,000/with 7.5% interest. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants claimants have preferred this appeal.

(3.) Heard Mr. M.I. Mansuri, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, learned advocate for the insurance company, respondent no.3. The present appeal is directed against the insurance company and is based only on quantum and therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter was taken up for final disposal and it was jointly pointed out that as the liability is not denied by the insurance company, the presence of other respondents is not necessary.