IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 111 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ============================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ============================================

BHURIBEN WD/O BHAGABHAI SONABHAI ALIAS HONABHAI TARAL &

ORS.

Versus ISMAILBHAI MIYAJI ALIAS MAMJIBHAI RAJPURA & ORS.

============================================

Appearance:

MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the Defendant(s) No. 4 MR NIKUNJ D BALAR(2763) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 7,8 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,5,6 ============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 03/12/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and award dated 29.01.2021, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Palanpur, District – Banaskantha, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.292 of 2013, wherein, the learned Tribunal was pleased to pass judgment in favour of respondent nos.7 and 8 herein – original claimants therein in connection of death of Bhagabhai Sonabhai @ Honabhai Taral. Against the said judgment the appellants – original claimants of MAC Petition No.283 of 2013, have preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).

2) The respondent nos.7 and 8 are the original claimants of MAC Petition No.292 of 2013 which is unchallenged before this Court, wherein, alleged that they have filed the separate claim petition in connection of death of Bhagabhai Sonabhai claiming that the respondent no.7 is second wife of the deceased and instead of joining her as party in the claim petition as opponent the claim petition was filed. Both the claim petitions were decided together by way of common judgment.

3) It is the case of the original claimants that on 10.09.2013 the deceased along with other were travelling in the Jeep of their acquaintance bearing Reg. No.GJ-02-K-0219. At that time the driver of the Dumper bearing Reg. No. GJ-08-Z-5583 came driving the said Dumper at high speed and in rash and negligent manner from the opposite side and dashed with the jeep. As a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed to the same. The driver of the Dumper fled away from the place of accident which occurred due to his negligent driving. Therefore, the original claimants have filed MAC Petition No.283 of 2013, seeking compensation. After appreciating the evidence produced on record the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allowed the claim petition.

4) Heard learned Advocate Mr. K. K. Thakkar for the appellants and learned Advocate Mr. H. M. Modi for the respondent nos.7 and 8, whereas, the remaining respondents were duly served but did not remain present before this Court.

5) Learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the impugned judgment is illegal and unjust and respondent nos.7 and 8 have no right to file any claim petition and the learned Tribunal has wrongly interpreted the provision of law and committed error in awarding compensation. He has further submitted that as per Section 161 of the Act second claim petition in connection of death of same person is not maintainable and the learned Tribunal ought to have passed order to join the respondent nos.7 and 8 as party as alleged proceeding was filed without joining or impleading the party. He has further submitted that as per Sections 5(I) and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, second marriage is void and hence second wife of the deceased is not entitled for any compensation. He has further submitted that the respondent no.7 – second wife was aware of the fact that the first wife of the deceased is alive, hence, she does not have any right for