1. This appeal has been preferred by original opponent no.2 against the judgment and award dated 02.12.2011 passed in M.A.C.P. No. 420/2006 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot whereby, the claim petition was allowed in part and respondent no.1, original claimant, was awarded total compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization.
2. The aforesaid claim petition was preferred by respondent no.1 inter alia contending that on 11.11.2005 while he was driving his motor-cycle bearing registration No. GJ-3-AJ-5094, a dog suddenly cross the road on account of which respondent no.1 lost control over the vehicle and it slipped. He sustained severe fracture injuries in the said accident and thereafter, filed the claim petition in question.
3. Mr.
Shalin Mehta learned counsel for the appellant contended that the claimant had earlier preferred an application u/s.140 of the M.V. Act but, the same was subsequently withdrawn. He contended that in the claim petition u/s.166 of the said Act, in which the impugned award has been passed, though the Tribunal recorded a definite conclusion that respondent no.1 was negligent, it awarded the compensation in question on the basis of "No Fault Liability", which is erroneous. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned award is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The amount involved in this appeal is Rs.25,000/-. It has been the consistent practice of this Court not to entertain appeals wherein, the claim is small. Claims below Rs.1,00,000/- have been quantified as petty claims by this Court. However, since Mr. Mehta insisted that the appeal involves a substantial question on law and the appellant should be given a chance to contest the appeal on merits, the matter is decided on merits.
5. It appears from the record that the accident in question took place on account of the sudden crossing of the road by a dog. It is true that the claimant had withdrawn the application filed u/s.140 of the M. V. Act. In my view, even if the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant was negligent for the accident in the proceedings u/s.166 of the said Act, it was justified in awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/- on the basis of "No Fault Liability" since the factum of accident was not in dispute. Hence, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned award.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is summarily rejected. The civil Application also stands disposed of.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top