Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/635/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 635 of 2011
=========================================================
MANIBEN
W/O MOHANBHAI SHANKARBHAI MAKWANA & 1 - Appellant(s)
Versus
DRIVER
& OWNER OF RICKSHAW NUMBER GJ-7-Z-197, BABUBHAI BACHU & 1 -
Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
PARESH M DARJI for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.
None for Defendant(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 23/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
appeal has been filed against the judgment and award passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Fast Track Court No. 3, Kheda
at Nadiad in M.A.C.P. No.1417/2003 dated 22.08.2006, whereby, the
said claim petition was partly allowed. By way of this appeal, the
appellant have prayed for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
2.
The facts in brief are that on 20.05.2003 while the appellants
Mohanbhai Shankerbhai Makwana and Dashrathbhai Mohanbhai Makwana were
travelling in a rickshaw bearing registration no. GJ-72-197, at that
time, the said vehicle was driven by respondent no.1. On account of
the rash and negligent driving by respondent no. 1, the rickshaw
turned turtle. As a result of the said accident, Mohanbhai sustained
severe bodily injuries and during the course of treatment he expired.
The legal heirs of the deceased, therefore, filed the claim petition
before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the
opponents. However, the said claim petition came to be partly allowed
by way of the impugned order. Hence, this appeal.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The main submission of learned counsel for the appellants
is that the Tribunal has not properly assessed the income of the
appellants while calculating the amount of compensation. However, I
do not find much substance in the submission made by the learned
counsel since no pass book of milk society or extract of village form
showing the land in the name of the deceased is produced. Apart from
that no affidavit of owner of the land is filed by the appellants to
support their say that the deceased was keeping the land of other on
mortgage. Therefore, the Tribunal has awarded the amount by assessing
the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.1500/-.
4. Looking
to the facts of the case and the evidence produced on record, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, appropriate and legal.
The appellants have not made out any case for enhancing the amount of
compensation. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by
and the findings arrived at by the Tribunal in the impugned award and
hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same.
5. Consequently,
the appeal is dismissed summarily. No costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top