Adiwasi Shivabhai Panglabhai v. Maganbhai Bhikhubhai Varli & Ors.

Taken up for final hearing. The appellants are the original claimants in a claim petition filed under section 110 (B) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). Claim for compensation was made by the appellants on account of the death of their son Mukesh, who died in a motor accident on 25th April, 1986. The age of the deceased was nine years. The first respondent is the driver of the offending Truck. The second respondent is the owner of the offending truck and the third respondent is the insurer of the offending Truck. 2 fa1490-88 The claim made by the appellant was in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-

The finding recorded by the Tribunal is that the appellant has failed to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the offending Truck. However, involvement of the Truck in the accident was held as established and it was accepted that the Truck was insured on the relevant date with the third respondent.

The Tribunal has passed an Award in the sum of Rs.15,000/- which was the compensation payable under section 92(A) of the said Act on account of 'no fault liability'.

The present Appeal is for seeking enhancement compensation granted by the Tribunal.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are served with notice. The insurance certificate placed on record at Exhibit 26 shows that the truck owned by the second respondent was validly insured with the third respondent on the date of the accident. 3 fa1490-88 On instructions, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent states that on the date of the accident, the offending truck was insured with the third respondent.

The claim made by the appellants in the claim petition was in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Under the provisions of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- is payable in case of 'no faulty liability'.

Even assuming that negligence is not proved, it is a fit case where compensation of Rs.50,000/- ought to have been granted by the Tribunal. To that extent the Award needs modification.

The Appeal has remained pending in this Court from the year 1988. It appears that Appeal was once dismissed for default and was restored later on. There was a delay in effecting service of notice. Moreover, in recent past, the rates of interest of Nationalized Banks have been considerably reduced. On the sum of Rs. 15,000/-, the third respondent has been directed to pay interest at the rate of 12 % p.a. Taking over all view of the matter, on the balance amount of Rs. 35,000/-, interest will be payable at 4 fa1490-88 the rate of 8 % p.a., from the date of filing of the claim petition.

Hence, I pass the following order : ::