SURAJABAI MOTILAL BINAYAKYA JAIN Vs. GENERAL MANAGER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MAHARASHTRA VAHATUK BHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and the present appellant filed an application for compensation being Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 7 of 1993 in the District Court at Nashik against the Respondent No. 1 namely Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. Respondent No. 2 was the driver of the bus, respondent No. 3 was the conductor. Learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nashik by his judgment and 20th order dated October, 1999 decided the said application and granted compensation to the original applicants i.e. present appellant and Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 to the tune of Rs. 1,85,000/-. The learned Member granted a sum of Rs. 20,000/-to the present appellant from and out of the total amount which was granted. Being aggrieved by the said award, dated 20th October, 1999, the appellant herein has filed the present appeal.

(2.) Respondent No. 4 in this appeal is Mangala who was married to Mangilal Binayakya Jain and out of the said wedlock between said Mangilal and Mangala, the Respondent No. 5 and Respondent No. 6 were born. The present appellant happens to be the mother of said Mangilal. Accident in question took place on 23rd July, 1992 and the Bus of the Respondent No. 1 bearing No. MH-12/F-3932 was involved in the said accident. Said Mangilal was dashed by the said bus and said Mangilal died in the course of the accident. It is to be noted that since the Respondent No. 1 MSRTC, Respondent No. 2, the driver and Respondent No. 3 the conductor have not filed any appeal against the aforesaid award. In view of this it, is not necessary for this Court to go into the question as regards the negligence on the part of the driver who was driving the said Bus and the question which is required to be considered is as regards grant of compensation and in particular to the present appellant.

(3.) In the course of trial on behalf of the applicants, Mangala, wife of Mangilal stepped into the witness box as PW-1. No other witness was examined on behalf of the applicants namely Mangala and others. One witness was examined on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. However, his evidence has no bearing on the questions which are involved in the present appeal.