FA/781/1990 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 781 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? -Yes. 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? -No. 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? -No. 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? -No. 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? -No. ========================================================= JAYSING GOKUMDAS KHARVA & 2 - Appellant(s) Versus LILAVATIBEN WD/O RATILAL MOHANLAL MADIAR & 3 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RAJNI H MEHTA for Appellant(s) : 1 - 3. NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1 - 4. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 12/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to transpose no.3. Permission is granted. FA/781/1990 2/4 JUDGMENT 2. By way of this appeal, the appellants-original opponents have challenged the judgment and order dated 21/3/1990 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Kutch at Bhuj in the Motor Accident Claim Application No.120 of 1984 whereby the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has partly allowed the petition and awarded the amount of compensation of Rs.3,96,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application till the date of depositing the amount before the Tribunal with proportionate costs. 3. The facts in brief leading rise to filing of the appeal is as under: 3.1) On 17/12/1983 at about 5:00 p.m., five kilometer away from Mandvi between the Deca Navygater Station and Mandvi on Bhuj Mandvi Road, the opponent no.1 was driving the truck No.GTY 5638, in which the Shri Ratilal Mohanlal Madiar and his wife-applicant no.1 were traveling as the owner of the goods carried in the said truck. The said truck is owned by the opponent no.2. It is the case of the petitioners that the opponent no.1 was driving the said truck in a rash and negligent manner and at an excessive speed and also without observing the rules of the road and without caring for the safety of the public. At the place of occurrence, the opponent no.1 gave side- FA/781/1990 3/4 JUDGMENT signal to the taxi which is following the truck, without reducing the speed of the truck, as a result of which the opponent no.1 lost the control over the vehicle. The truck went off the road and it partially turned turtled. Shri Ratilal Mohanlal Madiar fell down and sustained injuries over head died on the spot. 3.2) The claim petition is filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Shri Ratilal Mohanlal Madiar and they have claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of Shri Ratilal Mohanlal Madiar. 3.3) On completion of the pleadings, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.3,96,000/- as a compensation. Hence, this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended on the part of quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. For the same, the Tribunal while discussing the matter for issue no.2, in para 11 of the judgment discussed the matter in detail and considered that the age of the deceased was 39 years at the time of accident and PM Note was also not shown that the same is wrong. He was an agriculturist and earning from the same also. His brother-in-law was examined at Exh.60 and after FA/781/1990 4/4 JUDGMENT considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded the amount of compensation. Looking to the age of the deceased at the time of accident, the Tribunal has awarded the amount of compensation as stated herein above. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The main issue raised before the Court below was regarding quantum of compensation. The Tribunal has mainly relied upon the documentary evidence. From the documentary evidence, it transpires that the Tribunal has awarded just and proper amount of compensation. 6. Considering the documentary evidence on record, I am of the view the the Court below has rightly awarded the amount of compensation. Nothing contrary is pointed out to take a different view of the matter. The amount of compensation is just and proper which requires to be approved. I am in complete agreement with the findings of the Tribunal. No case is made out to interfere. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) (ila)