RABARI MENABEN VARVABHAI Vs. GOVINDBHAI BECHARBHAI CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 29.12.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) in MACP No. 294 of 1993, present appeal is filed by the appellants - original claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for short).

(2.) It is the case of the appellants - original claimants that accident took place on 12.02.1993 and it is the case of the appellants- original claimants that the deceased Devrajbhai Varvabhai Rabari along with two other persons, was traveling in Jeep bearing No. GJ-2T-2522 from Mehsana to Mulsan. It is further the case of the appellants that when Jeep reached Meu, Tractor bearing registration No. GBZ 9452 being driven by the respondent no. 1 herein came from the other side being driven in rash and negligent manner and in excessive speed, dashed with the Jeep and because of the accident, Devrajbhai sustained serious injuries and was firstly taken to the Mehsana Civil Hospital and thereafter was shifted for further treatment to Ahmedabad Civil Hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries. The appellants examined one of the claimant Rabari Menaben at Exh. 30 and also relied upon the documentary evidence such as FIR at Exh. 25, Panchnama of Scene of Offence at Exh. 26, death certificate of deceased Devraj at Exh. 27, Village form no. 7/12 at Exh. 32 to 34 and PM note of Devrajsinh at Exh. 29. It was the case of the appellants that deceased Devrajbhai was 21 years old and was doing agricultural work and was earning Rs. 2500/- per month and filed claim petition and claim compensation at Rs. 4,51,000/-. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, partly allowed the claim petition by the common judgment and award and awarded Rs. 95,000/- as compensation along with 9% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till 2000 and 6% interest from 2001 till its realization.

(3.) Heard Mr. Yogendra Thakore, learned advocate for the appellants- original claimants and Mr. Maulik Shelat, learned advocate for the respondent nos. 4 and 5. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of the other respondents. At the outset, it deserves to be noted that liability is not in dispute, therefore, presence of other respondents is not necessary.