M. B. SHAH, S. A. SHAH, J.

( 1 ) THE learned advocate for the appellants is not pressing his application (C. A. No. 249/78) for additional evidence and hence it is rejected.

( 2 ) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment band award dated 5/10/1977 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Surat in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 34 of 1976 original opponents Nos. 51 and 2 who are held jointly and severally liable to pay the total compensation of Rs. 40 500 to the claimants-applicants have filed this appeal.

( 3 ) APPLICANT No. 1 is the husband of deceased Madangauri who died because of the scooter accident which took place on 7/10/1975 at about 5 p. m. on Navapura Karva Road in the City of Surat. Rest of the applicants Nos. 2 to 9 are sons and daughters of the deceased. It is their case that the deceased was aged about 38 years at the time of accident. On the day of the accident Bai Madangauri was going from Karva Road to 7 Zampa Bazar. She was was on the left side of the road. At that time opponent No. 1 who was driving the scooter bearing No. GTL 1618 came from the Zampa Bazar side to Karva Road on the wrong side will excessive speed in a very rash and negligent manner and decide with the deceased. As a result or the dash the deceased fell do will and the front portion of the scooter struck with her head. She received serious injuries and was removed on the hospital Opponent No. 1 did not care to stop the scooter but he ran away. The deceased expired in the hospital on 9-10-75. It is their further case that the deceased was working on a factory and was earning Rs. 175. 00 per month approximately. The applicants claimed in all Rs. 60 0 by way of compensation. It is their case that the scooter belonged to opponent No. 3 Girdharlal Uttamchand of Ahmedabad. According to their into action the original owner of the scooter had transferred or sold it to Jahvantlal Ichchharam but it was not transferred in his name in R. T. O. office. Surat. So Jashvantlal Ichchharam was also joined as opponent No. 2. As the scooter was insured with New India Assurance Co. the Insurance Company was joined as opponent No. 4. Opponent No. 1 was the alleged driver of the scooter.

( 4 ) THIS application was revised by opponent No. 2 by filing a written statement Ex. 13. He contended that he was not the owner of the said scooter but opponent No. 3 was the owner of it. He contended that he had gone out of station on the day of incident and therefore He had no personal knowledge about the scooter accident. He denied that opponent No. 1 was driving the scooter.

( 5 ) OPPONENT No. 1 had also filed his written statement Ex. 19 wherein he denied the contentions of the applicants. He submitted thai he was not knowing anything about the scooter accident on the date of the incident nor he drove the said vehicle.

( 6 ) AS opponent No. 3 was avoiding service substituted service was effected by the Tribunal. Thereafter the public notice was published in daily newspaper Jansatta. Thereafter also opponent No. 3 did not appear and the proceeding was conducted ex-parte against him.

( 7 ) OPPONENT No. 4 Insurance Company filed a written statement Ex. 51. The Insurance Company contended that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident. According to the information on received by the Insurance Company it was submitted that opponent No. 3 who was insured at the time of the accident had transferred the vehicle to the opponent No. 2 without giving any information to the Insurance Company and therefore also the Insurance Policy lapsed on the transfer. It was further contended that as opponent No. 1 was neither holding a said driving licence on the day of accident nor prior to the day of accident the Insurance Company was not liable to pay anything to the claimants.

( 8 ) AFTER recording the necessary evidence the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the deceased Madangauri died in scooter accident which occurred on 7/10/1975 at about 5. 30 p. m. bec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document