DRUPADIBAI WD/O JUGALKISHORE BAJAJ Vs. RAJESHKUMAR S/O HIRALAL BAJAJ
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Drupadibai Wd/O Jugalkishore Bajaj
Rajeshkumar S/O Hiralal Bajaj
Click here to view full judgement.
S. B. Shukre, J. -
(1.) This is an appeal which questions the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 18th February, 2005, rendered in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.109/1991, by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldhana insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned.
(2.) The appellant No.1 is the widow of deceased Jugalkishore and appellant Nos.2 to 5 are the children of deceased Jugalkishore, who lost his life at the age of 52 years in a road accident involving a mini truck bearing registration No.MH28/9739. The accident occurred in between 4.00 a.m. and 5.00 a.m. of 28.4.1991 on Khamgaon to Chikhali Road, near village Ganeshpur, Tq. Khamgaon, District Buldhana. At that time, deceased Jugalkishore was travelling by the offending vehicle, which, being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed against trunk of a tree by the side of the road. Deceased Jugalkishore sustained serious head injury, to which he succumbed about a day later, while undergoing medical treatment. The loss of Jugalkishore was unbearable to the appellants and that they were also dependent upon the income of the deceased at the time of his death. Therefore, they filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, "MV Act") for claiming compensation from the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. The respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 respectively were the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The claim petition was not contested by the respondent No.1 and it proceeded exparte against him while it was contested by the respondent No.2. On merits of the case, the claim petition was partly allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granting compensation of Rs.1,06,500/ together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of application till actual realization by the impugned judgment and order. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellants are before this Court in the present appeal.
(3.) I have heard Shri A. Shelat, learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondents though duly served. I have gone through the record of the case including the impugned judgment and order.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.