SHALINI GHANSHYAM NIMJE Vs. BANWARILAL MUKUND CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal is preferred against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 13 of 2002 on 23/1/2006.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the First appeal and to the controversy in question are stated as under : one Ghanshyam Nimje met with an accident on 2/12/2001 while he was proceeding on his motorcycle on the Bhandara road at 2. 15 p. m. Shri. Ghanshyam died as a result of this accident which occurred due to the dash of the motorcycle with a trailer which was being rashly and negligently driven by the driver thereof. The deceased was about 43 years of age at the time of the accident and was working as a Civil Cop in the Nagpur municipal Corporation at the relevant time. The deceased was earning monthly wages of rs. 5,000/ -. The widow of Ghanshyam and two minor children filed Claim Petition before the additional District Judge, Nagpur which was registered as Claim Petition No. 13 of 2002. The insurance Company raised an objection about the non joinder of necessary parties i. e. the mother and the father of deceased Ghanshyam. In view of the aforesaid objection, the mother and father of deceased Ghanshyam were joined as party respondents to the Claim Petition. The claim Petition was decided by the Tribunal by the judgment dated 23-01-2006. It was held by the Tribunal that the death of Ghanshyam was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the trailer and the applicants were entitled to grant of compensation to the tune of rs. 4,39,000/ -. The Tribunal further held that the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to the Claim petition, the father and the mother of the deceased, were also entitled to grant of compensation. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the owner of the trailer and the Insurance company were jointly and severally liable to pay rs. 4,39,000/- to the applicants/claimants as well as the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of petition till its realisation. The Tribunal further proceeded to add that the appellants herein/ original claimants and the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were entitled to get equal share in the amount of compensation. Though the appellants have not seriously challenged the quantum of compensation granted at Rs. 4,39,000/-, the appellants have raised a serious objection against that part of the order which holds that the appellants as well as the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are entitled to equally share the amount of compensation.

(3.) Though by an order dated 28-04-2006, this Court had issued a notice of final disposal to the respondents, none appears on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4, though served. Advocate Smt. S. P. Deshpande, appears on behalf of respondent No. 2 Insurance company. According to the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 2 has no role to play in this first Appeal as the appellants are challenging the judgment passed by the Tribunal only to the extent of grant of share to the parties.