Gujarat High Court
Mangalbhai Fatabhai Patelia (Bhil) vs Rajeshkumar Mankelal Parikh on 13 April, 2017
Author: Mohinder Pal
Bench: Mohinder Pal
C/FA/91/1985 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 91 of 1985
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Sd/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see No
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as No
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
================================================================
1 - MANGALBHAI FATABHAI PATELIA (BHIL)
2 - CHUNKIBEN W/O MANGALBHAI FATABHAI
3 - SANKLIBEN WD/O BHARAT MANGALBHAI FATABHAI PATELIYA
5 - RAJU BHARATBHAI
4 - RAMESH BHARATBHAI
Appellant(s)
VERSUS
1 - RAJESHKUMAR MANKELAL PARIKH
2 - UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Defendant(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RADHESH Y. VYAS, ADVOCATE for MR DF AMIN, ADVOCATE for the
Appellant(s) No. 1 - 5
MR MAULIK J SHELAT, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
Page 1 of 4
HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Sun Aug 13 07:06:13 IST 2017
C/FA/91/1985 JUDGMENT
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Date : 13/04/2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 11.04.1983 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahal in M.A.C.P. No.25/1982, wherein against the claim of Rs.1,33,800/=, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.60,000/= as full and final compensation, payable to the claimants.
2. The facts in brief are that the deceased - Bharatsingh Mangalbhai was working as cleaner in a Truck No.GTK.4879 which met with an accident and turned turtle. As a result of this accident, Bharatsingh Mangalbhai received injuries and ultimately died. In a claim petition preferred by the relatives of the deceased, the Tribunal awarded Rs.60,000/= alongwith 6% interest per annum as compensation payable to the claimants.
3. Aggrieved by this decision, the claimants have come in an Appeal.
Page 2 of 4
HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Sun Aug 13 07:06:13 IST 2017
C/FA/91/1985 JUDGMENT
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased though being a cleaner, had a driving license to drive a truck. He was aged 27 years at the time of accident and had passed the 10th standard. The Tribunal has not taken into consideration all these circumstances and the award is liable to be interfered with.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel representing the Insurance Company, who has contended that this is a case under the old act of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the insurance company could not have been held liable except for the liability under the Workmen Compensation Act, as per Section 95 of the old Act.
6. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides. The main argument of learned Counsel for the appellant is to the effect that the deceased was having a driving license to drive a Truck. He was a metric pass and was aged 27 years and all these facts have not been taken into consideration by the Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Sun Aug 13 07:06:13 IST 2017 C/FA/91/1985 JUDGMENT Tribunal. However, the arguments raised by learned Counsel for the appellants are required to be substantiated by placing on record a copy of the driving license, the matriculation certificate. None of these documents seems to have been produced by the claimants at the time of leading of evidence.
7. In absence of any evidence to prove the fact regarding the driving license and matric pass, no benefit can be granted to the appellants.
8. Keeping in view the order of the Tribunal, the status of the parties, the manner in which the accident has taken place and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the award of Rs.60,000/= passed in favour of the claimants is just and proper in this case.
9. Resultantly, this appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.
Sd/-
(MOHINDER PAL, J.) Caroline Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Sun Aug 13 07:06:13 IST 2017