MOHAMMED AKBAR Vs. MUSTAFA KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. H.M.S. Athar, the learned Advocate for the appellants. None present for the respondent No. 2 though served.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate Mr. V.L. Somalwar who appears for the respondent No. 3 was heard along with the learned Advocate for the appellant on earlier occasion i.e., on September 19, 2003. Hearing of this appeal was adjourned as the learned Counsel at that time sought time for referring some judicial pronouncements which according to them are relevant in this appeal.

(3.) THE respondents were served. The respondent No. 1 who was driving the said vehicle at the time of the accident remained absent and did not file written statement. The respondent No. 2 is the owner of the truck involved in the accident who had filed written statement at Exh. 15. The respondent No. 3 Insurance Company filed its written statement at Exh. 17 and resisted the petition. The respondent No. 3, however, admitted that the Truck No. URS-9785 was insured with the said respondent No. 3 Insurance Company at the relevant time. However, the respondent No. 3 emphatically denied the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1. According to the respondent No. 3, the vehicle which was loaded with potatoes, was proceeding from Kanhan to Kamptee in a normal speed. The road was crowded with pedestrians on account of Maharram Festival. Niyaz Ahmed (deceased boy) of the appellants suddenly tried to cross the road. disregarding traffic rules and without noticing the said truck which was plying on the road at the relevant time, accidentally, came under the wheels of the said truck. According to the respondent No. 3, therefore, the accident took place only on account of the negligence on the part of the deceased Niyaz Ahmed. The learned Tribunal considering the pleadings of the parties framed issues in the matter. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, dismissed the claim petition with no order as to costs by the judgment and award dated 19th March, 1987. However, the Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur recorded the finding that the appellants are entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,940/-. The learned Member, Additional M.A.C.T., Nagpur, considered grant of Rs. 15,000/- under the principles of No Fault Liability and, therefore, held that despite the fact that the applicants are entitled for getting compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,940/-, but an amount of Rs. 15,000/- is already paid to them on account of principle of No Fault Liability and, therefore, by this substantive petition, the appellants are not entitled for any more compensation than the amount of Rs. 15,000/- which was previously granted. In other words, the learned Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, awarded Rs. 15,000/- to the appellants on account of accidental death of their only son Niyaz Ahmed. It is this award passed by the Member, Addl. M.A.C.T., Nagpur, in Claim Petition No. 32/1984 is challenged in this appeal by the parents of the deceased Niyaz, who are appellants.