Hon'ble ASOPA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant miscellaneous appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 15th June, 2005 passed by Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal & (Essential Commodities Act) Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'Tribunal') in Claim Case No.1322/2004 (845/2002); Ratan & Anr. vs. Rakesh Jain & Anr. for enhancement of the award from Rs.50,000/-.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as under:

3a. The claimant-appellants have filed a claim petitioner before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act of 1988') against the respondent-non-claimants, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.11,40,000/-, on account of the loss suffered by them due to the death of their 6 years old minor daughter Kum. Chikwa in the accident which took place on 3.1.2000 when she was crossing the road to take water at Jai Club Circlr, Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, the Maruti Car No.RJ-14-4c-4914 which was being driven and owned by the respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner and hit Ku. Chikwa by coming from the wrong side, as a result of which, she died. At the relevant time, the car was insured with the respondent No.2. First Information Report to the accident was came to be registered at the concerned Police Station and after investigation, the police filed challan against the driver of the Maruti Car holding him negligent in driving the vehicle.

3b. It was pleaded by the claimants in their claim petition that deceased was helping the family by making broom to the tune of Rs.500/- per month and at the time of her death she was aged about 6 years only.

3c. The respondent-non-claimant No.1, the driver/owner of the Maruti Car submitted his reply to the claim petition and denied the averments of the same. It was pleaded that no such accident was took place with his car and the car was being driven by the driver Ramji Lal and when he reached near Jai Club, a minor girl met with an accident with some other white Maruti Car. Certain other objections were also raised and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. The respondent No.2 Insurance Company also filed the reply to the claim petition and also denied he averments of he same. It was also pleaded that the insured has committed breach of policy condition, as information regarding the accident was not furnished by him. In the First Information Report, the vehicle number has not been mentioned. The vehicle in question has been involved by filing private complaint by the claimants. The vehicle involved in the accident has not been seized by the police and mechanical inspection has not been conducted for the said vehicle. The plea of contributory negligence was also raised. Certain other objections were also raised and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed as many as 5 issues and proceeded to record the evidence of the parties. The issues framed by the Tribunal are as under:

^^1- vk;k iz'uxr okgu ek:fr dkj uacj vkj-ts- 14 4lh 4914 ds pkyd foi{kh la[;k ,d ds }kjk fnukad 3-1-2000 dks t; Dyc ds ikl v'kksd ekxZ] lh-Ldhe] t;iqj ij mä okgu dks mis{kk@mrkoysiu ls pykdj dh xbZ nq?kZVuk esa vkbZ pksVksa ds ifj.kkeLo:i dq- fpdok dh e`R;q gqbZ\

2- vk;k mä okgu pkyd rc mä okgu Lokeh foi{kh la[;k ,d ds fu;kstu esa gksdj mlh ds fgrkFkZ ,oa ykHkkFkZ dk;Z dj jgk Fkk\

3- vk;k foi{kh la[;k nks chek dEiuh }kjk vius fyf[kr dFku dh izkjfHkd vkifÙk;ksa ,oa fo'ks"k dFku ds eísutj chek daiuh vius nkf;Ro ls eqä gks ldrh gS] ugha rks bldk izHkko\

4- vk;k nkosnkj vius nkos@nkok esa vafdr iz'uxr jkf'k ;k vU; dksbZ U;k;leer jkf'k ik ldk gS gka rks dkSu dkSu nkosnkj fdruh fdruh jkf'k] fdl fdl foi{kh ls ,oa fdl izdkj ls ik ldrs gSa\

5- vuqrks"k\**

5. In support of their claim, claimant-appellants have examined AW-1 Ratan, AW-2 Smt. Udi and AW-3 Shankar Singh and some documents were also got exhibited. On behalf of the non-claimants, neither oral nor doc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document