JAYANTILAL Vs. DRIVER RANBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the award dated 19. 2. 1986 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in Claim Petition No. 198/1981 by which the claim petition of the legal representatives of Deepak Jayantilal Raja, Shri Jayanti Lal and Smt. Vanita, who are father and mother of the deceased-Deepak, was decided by the Tribunal awarding Rs. 56,000/- in favour of the claimant-appellants and against non-applicant Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and rejected the claim against non-applicant Nos. 4, 5 & 6, along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition on the condition that in case the amount will be deposited within three months before the Tribunal to be paid to the claimants, otherwise the claimants will be entitled for interest @ 12% per annum. The costs of the litigation was awarded Rs. 300/ -.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the deceased-Deepak Jayantilal along with deceased-Bhanwar Lal were travelling in taxi-car No. RST 6171 from Ahmedabad to Udaipur on 2. 6. 1981. At about 5,00 to 6. 00 a. m. , while the car was going on Udaipur National Highway No. 8, a oil-tanker No. 7135 came from opposite side and hit the taxi-car and the passengers travelling in the taxi-car were injured including Deepak and Bhanwar Lal who died. Before death, Deepak was seriously injured and he was taken to the Udaipur Hospital and died on 19. 6. 1981. Replies were filed by the non- applicants and there was counter allegation of rash and negligent driving against each other by the driver of the tanker and driver of the taxi-car. The Tribunal framed issue No. 1 with respect to the whether on 2. 6. 1981 Deepak Jayantilal died due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. 7135 by Ranvir Singh and whether the claimants are entitled for Rs. 2,00,000/ -. In another claim petition No. 1/1982 which was filed by Sujanmal and others due to the death of Bhanwar Lal, the Tribunal framed five issues. The learned Tribunal in both the claim petitions by common order dated 19. 2. 1986 awarded different amounts but this appeal is against only claim petition No. 1981198t.

(3.) THE present appeal was filed against the impugned award dated 19. 2. 1986. THE appeal was filed on 21. 5. 1986 and since then the appeal is pending for such a long period and the argument were heard by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 16. 5. 1996. On 2. 7. 1996, the learned Single Judge of this Court directed to reconstitute the record of the Tribunal as it was found that part of the record of the Tribunal was weeded out. THE available record was sent to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on 17. 7. 1996. It is found from the record of the Tribunal that the record was received by the Tribunal on 25. 7. 1996. THE Tribunal by order dated 31. 7. 1996 passed the order to issue notices to the counsel for the parties with a direction that whatever record available with them may be produced before the Tribunal on 8. 8. 1996 so that the record may be reconstituted. Even after service, none of the counsel appeared on 8. 8. 1996, therefore, again notices were issued by order dated 8. 8. 1996. On 23. 8. 1996 Shri J. S. Bhatt, Advocate appeared and stated that the Advocate was coming from Rajkot deemed income for those who are in the category of non-earning persons. It is also stated that if the amount would have been paid to the claimants within the stipulated period it would have increased eight times within a span of 20 years and further submitted that Sec. 163-A, Second Schedule, has been made applicable retrospectively and it is also stated that earning potentialities of the deceased also were worth consideration and, therefore, the amount of the award must exceed even Rs. 4,00,000/ -. THErefore, the claimants claimed that they may be permitted to amend the relief. THE learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon various judgments in support of his contention.