PRAVEENA R DOSHI Vs. GANPAT PARAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appeal arises out of the Award passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Goa, Panaji, in Claim Petition no. 120/1998.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows : One Smt. Praveena R. Doshi, had filed the Claim Petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by her in the accident in which the vehicle owned by the Respondent no. 2 and driven by Respondent no. 1 was involved. Smt. Praveena Doshi made the claim for compensation on the ground of loss of income, mental shock, pain, agony and sufferings, medicines and medical expenses, transportation charges, telephone charges, tea, food and breakfast and paying guest rentals. The accident had taken place on 07.07.1998. The Claim Petition was filed by Smt. Praveena R. Doshi and subsequently she executed a Power of Attorney in favour of her son Shri Hemang Doshi. Shri Hemang Doshi, had given evidence on behalf of the original claimant. During the pendency of the Claim Petition, after the evidence given on behalf of the claim petitioner was over, Smt. Praveena Doshi, died. The legal representatives of Smt. Praveena Doshi were brought on record. However, after the legal representatives were brought on record, no further evidence was given by them. The Tribunal proceeded with the matter and by the impugned Award, concluded that the present Appellants, i.e. the legal representatives of the original claimant had not proved that the death of Smt. Praveena Doshi has occurred due to the injuries which she suffered in the accident which took place on 07.07.1998. Smt. Praveena Doshi, died on 14.05.2005. In view of these conclusions, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the Claim Petition holding that the Appellants (legal representatives of the original claimant) are not entitled for the compensation. The Appellants being aggrieved by the Award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, have filed this Appeal.

(3.) I have heard Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Advocate for the Appellant and Shri A. R. Kantak, learned Advocate for the Respondent no. 2.