RAJ GOVIND RAI Vs. THAKURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Sri Ram Nagina Rai received serious injuries of his head and person while sitting by the side of a road on being hit by a Mini Bus on 28-6-197-i at about 2.30 p.m. He died some thirty hours later. His widow Smt. Thakuri Devi and a minor daughter Km. Satwati filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ballia on 30-7-1974. They claimed Rs. 60,000/- as compensation on account of the death having taken place due to rash and negligent act in driving Mini Bus. The claim petition was contested by the owner of the vehicle Sri Raj Govind Rai. He denied that the vehicle was at all involved in the accident for it was detained in a police station on the very day of the accident between 10.30 a.m. to (SIC) p.m. The further plea was that the driver of the Mini Bus was not Bachcha Rai, son of the owner of the vehicle. In any event rash and negligent act o(SIC) the driver was denied and the claim was said to be excessive. The Insurance Company( Respondent No. 3 was impleaded and notice issued to it also. Th(SIC) Claims Tribunal by its judgment dated 18-12-1978 allowed the Claim Petitio(SIC) and awarded Rs. 7,500/- as damages in all to the widow and the mino(SIC) daughter. The Claims Tribunal held that the Mini Bus was involved in the accident which resulted in the death of Sri Ram Nagina Rai and which was being driven rashly and negligently. In the matter of awarding compensation the Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 6i years and hi(SIC) contribution to the family was about Rs. 150/- per month and, therefore, (SIC) sum of Rs. 9,000/- in all would be payable to the claimants but out of which 20 per cent was deducted for lump sum payment Rs. 100/- which are claimed as taxi fare, was allowed but out of Rs. 500/- claimed for medicines only Rs. 200/- were allowed.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the above decision the owner of the vehicle, Raj Govind Rai has filed this appeal in this Court. He has challenged the factum of accident by the Mini Bus, the quantum of compensation awarded, and also against the decree being passed against the owner appellant.

(3.) WHEN the appeal was called out for hearing today, no one appeared for the appellant. The Court waited for the learned Counsel for the appellant to appear and the case was taken up on the list being revised. Even then learned Counsel for the appellant did not appear. Consequently, there is no other option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. I order accordingly.