BHARATBHAI KASTURCHAND SHAH Vs. MAFATBHAI BABABHAI MAKWANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein are the parents of the unfortunate victim Ramesh a boy of 12 years in age who succumbed to the injuries which he received in course of an accident which occurred on April 7 1972 at the junction of four roads known as Asodar Chokdi on Vasad-Borsad road when appellant No. 1 who happened to be the driver of appellant No. 2-firm while coming in a car bearing registration No. GJM 7156 from Vasad side knocked down Ramesh with the result that he was thrown away to a distance of about 13 feet due to the impact. The car could stop only after going about 80 to 90 feet. The victim of the accident was rushed to Borsad Municipal General Hospital where he died of the in juries sustained by him. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 therefore filed claim petition being Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 47 of 1973 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kaira at Nadiad claiming compensation for the fatal accident in sum of Rs. 9 900 comprising of different amounts that is Rs. 500.00 on account of hospital expenses; Rs. 3 0 on account of expectation of life; Rs.2 0 on account of damages for pain and agony and Rs.4 400 by way of pecuniary loss.

(2.) The appellants as well as the British India General Insurance Company Ltd. and one Jahangirji Rustamji Patel were arrayed as original opponents Nos. 1 to 4 respectively before the Tribunal. Original opponent No. 4 who is respondent No. 4 before me was joined as a party opponent since the registration of the vehicle stood in his name in the record of the Regional Transport Officer. Appellants Nos. 1 and 2 were joined as party-opponents because appellant No. 1 was the main tort feasor being driver of the vehicle which was agreed to be purchased by appellant No. 2-firm on has purchase basis from opponent No. 4. Opponent No. 3 was joined as it was the insurer of the vehicle since it had issued a comprehensive insurance policy covering the loss or damage to the motor car and also for covering the liability to third parties.

(3.) The claim petition was raised by the said opponents. Original opponents Nos. 1 and 2 are in appellants before me. They have denied their liability as the accident did not taken place on account of rash and negligent driving. They also denied that opponent No. 1 was driving the car and opponent No. 2 was the owner of it. Opponent No. 3 the Insurance Company entered the defence of bare denial of the averments in the petition. Opponent No. 3. Insurance Company further contended that since opponent No. 4 the owner had handed over the control of the car to opponents Nos. 1 and 2 the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the loss. Opponent No. 4 admitted that he was the owner of the vehicle in question at the time of the incident and the same was in possession of opponent No. 1 as hire-purchaster. He denied his liability for paying the compensation to the claimants.