1. Heard learned advocates for the appellant and perused the papers on record.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 12.10.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gandhidham-Kutch in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 279 of 2003 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 75,525/- as compensation with interest at 9% per annum.
3. It is the case of the appellant that on 26.06.2001 while the brother of the appellant was travelling in a taxi bearing registration no. GJ-1 VV 5171 being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, the taxi dashed with a bridge as a result of which the brother of the appellant sustained injuries on various parts of the body and finally succumbed to the same. The appellant therefore filed claim petition to the tune of Rs. 4,57,500/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Mr.
Modi, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the entire facts of the case and evidence on record and thereby erred in awarding adequate amount under various heads. He submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding only 57% of compensation presuming the fact that 3 sisters have filed another claim and they might have received the same.
5. As a result of hearing and perusal of records, this court is of the view that considering the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the brother of the appellant sustained injuries as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the original opponent no. 1. The Tribunal has awarded compensation considering 57% share of the brother. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121, the brother of the deceased is not entitled to the share as awarded by the Tribunal. However, this court is not inclined to disturb the position which is prevailing for these many years and therefore do not see any reason for causing interference.
6. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top