HULLASBEN DHIRUBHAI CHAUHAN Vs. KARABHAI SOMABHAI MAKWANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appellants, who were the original claimants in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.139 of 1992, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad have prayed for grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-? with interest and costs, towards the damages occurred on account of sad demise of Shri Dhirubhai Shivabhai Chauhan in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 24.04.1990.

(2.) Brief facts arises from the record read as under:-? 2.1 In a singular motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 24.04.1990 at about 10:30 p.m., near village Chharodi, situated on Viram-?Sanand Highway road, the deceased Dhirubhai Shivabhai who was driving the Tractor No.GAO 9927 on the left side of the road from near village Chharodi, at that time, the Truck No.GTX 4507 which was being driven speedily and in rash and negligent manner and coming from Viramgam side, dashed with the said tractor from behind. In this accident, Dhirubhai succumbed to the injuries sustained by him, and therefore, his legal representatives and dependents filed a claim petition No.139 of 1992 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-? under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2.2 Legal heirs and representatives of the deceased Dhirubhai Shivabhai Chauhan, vehemently contended in their claim petition preferred before the Tribunal that on 24.04.1990, the deceased was proceeding with Tractor No.GAO 9927 on Viramgam to Sanand Highway Road by driving his vehicle in a moderated speed, on the correct side of the road at about 10:30 p.m., the opponent No.1, drove his Truck No.GTX 4507, rashly and negligently from Viramgam and dashed with the tractor, driven by the deceased. He sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. As per the averments made in the claim petition, age of the deceased was 34 years at the time of accident, when the accident was occurred. The deceased was earning Rs.1,000/-? per month by driving the Tractor. That, he was an owner of agricultural land, which was around 25 vighas and earning Rs.25,000/-? per annum. That, the claimants are not in a position to cultivate the land in his absence and therefore, income of the deceased should be considered at Rs.3,000/-? per month by deducting Rs.5,00/-? on account of his personal expenses and net income at Rs.2,500/-? only per month. They requested to pass an award for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-? only by way of compensation on account of the sad demise of the husband/father of the claimant. 2.3 On issuance of notice by the Tribunal, the respondent No.3-?Oriental Insurance Company filed his written statement vide Exh.15 denying the averments, allegations and statements made by the claimants in their petition for compensation. It was specifically denied that the age and relationship of the claimants with the deceased was that of any family or the income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/-? per month. It was also denied that on account of the accident, deceased had any serious injuries. That, there was no nexus between the death and injuries. Date, time and place of the accident and the registration number of the vehicle involved in the accident were not admitted. With regard to the name of the driver, owner and the Insurance of the said truck, were also denied by the opponent. Though, requested to dismiss the claim petition with cost, the Tribunal, after framing issues and considering the evidence was pleased to partly allow the claim petition to the extent of Rs.2,33,200/-? (Rupees Two Lacs Thirty Three Thousand Two Hundred Only) together with proportionate cost and interest @12% per annum from the date of the petition, till realization from the opponents; jointly and severely. 2.4 The original claimants, being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal have approached this Court for enhancement of the amount.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel Mr. Hemant S. Shah for the appellants and learned counsel Ms. Karuna V. Rahevar for the respondent No.3. Though notice was served, nobody appeared for the respondents No.1 and 2 nor any mention is made on their behalf.