LAWS(RAJ)-2018-10-204

MANJU DEVI GURJAR Vs. HARI RAM HARINARAYAN GURJAR

Decided On October 05, 2018
Manju Devi Gurjar Appellant
V/S
Hari Ram Harinarayan Gurjar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation has been preferred by the claimant/appellants against the judgment and award dtd. 1/5/2008 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred as "the learned Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 211/2006 titled as Manju Devi and Ors v. Hari Ram, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,81,400.00 along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment.

(2.) Skeletal material facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that a claim petition was filed by the claimant/appellants on account of death of Sh. Hari Narayan, who died in a motor accident which occurred on 16/6/2006. The deceased Hari Narayan was husband of appellant No. 1, father of appellants No. 2 and 3 and son of appellant No. 4. It is stated in the claim petition that on 16/6/2006, deceased Hari Narayan was sitting in TATA 407 bearing No. HR-46A-4711. While coming from Delhi, he was sitting in the vehicle on the conductor side. All of a sudden the vehicle turned down due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by it's driver. Hari Narayan fell down on the road and was crushed by the aforesaid vehicle and he died on the spot. It is also stated that non-claimant/respondent No. 1 was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. Non-claimant/respondent No. 2 was registered owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and the vehicle was insured with nonclaimant/respondent No. 3. In different heads, the claimant/appellants claimed compensation of Rs.25,47,000.00 from the non-claimant/respondents.

(3.) The non-claimant/respondents No. 1 and 2 opposed the claim petition by filing reply thereto, stating therein that the compensation claimed is exaggerated. It is also stated that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was insured with non-claimant/respondent No. 3 and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against them.