- (1.) Instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimant-appellants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded vide award dated 10.4.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in claim case No. 485/1993 by which a compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,21,000 has been awarded to the claimant-appellant. The brief facts, which have been gathered on perusal of the impugned award as well as record of the Tribunal, are that on 9.4.1993, the deceased Ramavtar, while travelling in the mini bus bearing No. RJ-14-P-1761 from Sanganer to Tonk Phatak, a truck bearing No. RJO-2955, which was being driven by its driver in high speed in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the mini bus near Gangaur Hotel, Sita Mandi, as a result of which deceased Ramavtar sustained severe and grievous injuries on his body and consequently he succumbed to death. An FIR to this effect was lodged. In the concerned police station and the police, after investigation, filed challan in the Court.
(2.) The claimant-appellant submitted claim petition before the Tribunal wherein it was claimed that the deceased was working as a barber and was aged about 30 years at the time of accident. Mother and wife of the deceased both claimed that the deceased was working as a barber and as regards the income of the deceased, while his wife claimed that he was earning Rs. 2000 per month, his mother claimed that he was earning Rs. 2100 per month. Nevertheless, both claimed that they were dependent upon the deceased because even the mother Smt. Bhanwari Devi, the present appellant, was also a widow. Though two separate claim petitions were filed, one by Smt. Bajrangi, wife of the deceased and the other by Smt. Bhanwari Devi, mother of the deceased with whom two brothers and one sister joined.
(3.) Before the Tribunal, despite of proper notices, respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who were driver, owner of the offending vehicle (truck), and driver of the mini bus respectively did not appear and therefore, ex parte proceedings were drawn against them. It is also on record, as narrated by the Tribunal, that there was no written statement filed by the other respondents as well. However, in the second claim petition, the Insurance Company filed a written statement and the claim was objected by the Insurance Company on the plea that the claim petition was not preferred in the desired proforma nor the driver of the minibus was made a party. It was further claimed that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck driver and that they were not liable in any manner. It was further claimed that the driver of the mini bus had no valid driving licence and accordingly objected to the claim petition and requested for dismissal of the claim.;