By way of filing this appeal, the appellants – original claimants have challenged the judgment and award dated 19th September 2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Main), Valsad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1349 of 2002 whereby the Tribunal was pleased to award Rs.1,62,500 towards compensation to the claimants, but exonerated the insurance company. 2 The short facts of the present case are that on the date of the incident, while deceased Manisha was going on her bicycle at about 8.45 PM, she was given a dash by the offending vehicle bearing No.GQO 1222 that was being driven by opponent No.1. In the said accident, Manisha received serious injuries and died due to the same. The appellants being the parents of Manisha therefore filed claim petition. The learned Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 19th September 2005 awarded Rs.1,62,500/- to the claimants.
3 Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 19th September 2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Main), Valsad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1349 of 2002, the appellants – original claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation.
4 Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the claim amount in whole. He has also submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have exonerated the insurance company and ought to have believed that the policy was in existence.
5 While considering the case and more particular issues Nos.3, 4 and 5 at page the Tribunal has observed as under:
“But from the record of the claim petition, it appears that the opponent No.2 was died before filing the claim petition. The Death Certificate is produced in the record. The summons also shows that the opponent no.2 was expired on 20/11/1997. The copy of the Death Certificate is also shows that the opponent no.2 was expired on 20/11/1997. No legal heirs of the opponent no.2 brought on record. The policy is produced at mark 6/7. On seeing the policy, it appears that the policy was in existence for the period from 15/1/1998 to 14/1/1999.
As per the claim-petition the accident occurred on 8/12/1998. The policy produced at mark 6/7 issued in the name of Nathubhai H Patel, but on 15/1/1998 Nathubhai was expired. As per the Death Certificate and the endorsement made on summons, it appears that Nathubhai was expired on 20/11/1997. So, I am of the view that there is no privity of contract in connection with the policy produced at mark 6/7. So, I am of the view that the opponent no.3 is not liable to pay any compensation on the grounds of the legal heirs not brought on record. Moreover, there was no privity of contract existed between the deceased and the opponent No.3 in connection with the Policy produced at mark 6/7. So, I am of the view that the opponent no.3 is not liable to pay any compensation. The opponent no.3 has to indemnify the compensation. The applicants have not brought the legal heirs of the opponent no.2 and therefore the claim petition is automatically abates against the opponent no.2”
In my view, the Tribunal has taken the correct view that on the date of the accident the original owner of the vehicle has died and in that view of the matter no interference is required. The appeal is devoid of merits. The appeal has no merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the same is dismissed.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd