(1.) With the consent of the parties matter heard finally.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Sangeetabai was the wife of appellant No. 1 and mother of rest of the appellants. It is submitted that at the time of accident Sangeetabai was pregnant and because of accident the 9 months old foetus died. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Shraddha Vs. Headrest s,2006 2 TAC 970. Wherein this Court laid down the principles for awarding compensation for even still-born baby to be considered as child. Learned Counsel further submits that since the child was in womb, therefore the amount awarded is on lower side, which deserves to be enhanced. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced.
(3.) Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the cross-objections have been filed by respondent No. 3, It is submitted that the learned Tribunal committed error in holding the respondent No. 3 liable for payment of compensation. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Margappa Shethappa Vadar Vs. Proctor & Gamble India, 2008 ACJ 2802. wherein pregnant lady who was carrying 28 weeks old foetus died and the Tribunal held that unborn child in womb is not a person and rejected the claim. Bombay High Court held that death of foetus in womb cannot be treated as death of person within the meaning of Section 165 of Motor Vehicles Act. It was also held that there is no concept as legal representative of foetus. On the strength of aforesaid position of law, learned Counsel submits that the appeal filed by the appellants be dismissed and the cross-objections filed by respondent No. 3 be allowed and the award passed by the learned Tribunal be set aside.