S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4392/2008. Case: Kamlesh and Ors. Vs Purna Chand Yogi and Ors.. Rajasthan High Court

Case NumberS.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4392/2008
CounselFor Appellant: Sandeep Mathur, Adv.
JudgesDinesh Chandra Somani, J.
IssueMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 140, 166, 173
Judgement DateFebruary 15, 2017
CourtRajasthan High Court


Dinesh Chandra Somani, J.

  1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation has been preferred by the claimant/appellants against the judgment and award dated 09-07-2008 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in claim petition No. 508/2006 (1815/04) titled Smt. Kamlesh & Ors. v. Purna Chand & Ors., whereby, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 8,71,000/- to the claimant/appellants alongwith interest @ of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

  2. Skeletal material facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 12-10-2003 at about 10:00 PM, Mukesh Kumar Yadav was going on Motorcycle No. RJ-02-9M-0897 from Shahjahanpur towards Tula Ki Dhani Palwa, alongwith his relative Sandeep. When they reached about 1 Km. ahead of Shahjahanpur, a Jeep No. RJE 0994, being driven rashly, negligently and with excessive speed by it's driver respondent No. 1, came from Mirjapur side by violating the traffic rules and coming on the wrong side, hit the motorcycle. Because of the hit Shri Mukesh Kumar sustained serious injuries and died.

  3. Claimant/appellants, widow, daughter, son and parents of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation of Rs. 42,80,000/-, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City-II which was later on transferred to Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur. It is averred in the claim petition that the deceased Mukesh Kumar was posted as Constable in Rajasthan Police, Bikaner and his income was Rs. 7000/- per month at the time of accident. At the time of accident, Mukesh Kumar was 28 years aged.

  4. Non-claimant/respondent No. 1 did not choose to appear before the learned Tribunal, despite service, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against him. Non-claimant/respondent No. 2, entered his appearance but he did not file reply to the claim petition. Non-claimant/respondent No. 3 Insurance Company opposed the claim petition by filing reply thereof stating therein that the driver of the insured vehicle was not having effective and valid driving licence on the day of the accident. It is also stated that owner of the vehicle did not give information of the accident and, thereby breached the policy conditions...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT