YAMINI VIJAYKUMAR DUBE Vs. ARIFKHAN AJIJKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-original claimants are before this Court for challenging the judgment dtd. 7/5/2004 in M.A.C.P. No. 91 of 1996, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal). Under the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim of the appellants for getting compensation of Rs.5,00,000.00 on account of death of one Vijaykumar Laxminarayan Dube. Present appellant no. 1 is his wife whereas, appellants no. 2 to 4 are his children.

(2.) It is stated in the Claim Petition that on 31/7/1995, Vijaykumar and Respondent No. 4-Dr. Sanjay Lad were coming to Pimprala from Paldhi on a scooter bearing Registration No. MH-19-D-3933 after having meal. At that time, one blue coloured motor vehicle bearing Registration No. MH-19-4788 of TATA Maye, looking like a DCM Toyota, gave dash to the said scooter from back side. In the said accident, Vijaykumar sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The rider of aforesaid scooter Dr. Sanjay Lad filed complaint against the said Matador tape vehicle in Paldhi Police Out-Post and accordingly Crime No. 86/1995 was registered in Dharangaon Police Station. However, the concerned Investigating Officer filed report under Sec. 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mentioning that there was no substantial evidence available against present Respondent No. 1 i.e. driver of the said Matador, as per Exhibit-90.

(3.) Respondents No. 1 and 2, who are driver and owner of the offending Matador, denied involvement of aforesaid vehicle in the accident by filing their respective written statements at Exhibits-29 and 30. It has been claimed by Respondent No. 1 that there was no sufficient evidence against him, being the driver of the motor vehicle which gave dash to the scooter. Likewise, Respondent No. 2-owner had also claimed that he was not at all owner of the motor vehicle which gave dash to the scooter on which deceased was a pillion rider. Respondent No. 3-Insurer also, under its written statement, denied the fact that the aforesaid vehicle bearing Registration No. MH-19-4788 was insured with it on the date of the accident. It is claimed that in fact the motor vehicle bearing Registration No. MH-19-4388 owned by Respondent No. 2 was insured with it.