1 By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 22nd January 2004 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Nadiad in MAC Petition No.1659 of 1997 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed claim petition filed by the claimants.
2 The short facts of the present appeals are that on 5th June 1997 deceased Manubhai was going for his home from Bhavnagar on Dholera Bhavnagar in his jeep bearing No.GJ.7.H.5296 and when the said jeep reached the outskirts of village Hebatpur, at that time, his jeep was given a dash by the truck bearing No.GJ8.U.2745. In the said accident, deceased Manubhai had died on the spot. The claimants being mother, wife and children of the deceased therefore filed claim petition claiming the compensation of Rs.5 lakhs from the opponents.
3. The Tribunal has after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence has rejected the claim petition as the accident had taken place due to sole negligence on the part of the deceased. The Tribunal has observed in paragraph 12 to 14 of his judgment as under:
“12. The Driver stated in this complaint that he is driving the vehicle for the last 10 years. On 5.6.97 at 2.00 AM driver of the truck was driving his from Chhotaudepur to Bhavnagar. On 5.6.97 at about 8 AM he bypassed Dholka and was taking his vehicle in the direction of Bhavnagar near Hetalpur signing board. One truck No.GJ.8.U 2745 from Chhotaudepur to Bhavnagar was coming from opposite side I.e. from Bhavnagar side. The driver of the jeep took his vehicle on the side of the truck and collided with the truck. The opponent No.1 took his vehicle on the side of the truck and collided with the truck. The opponent No.1 got down from his vehicle and saw that driver of the jeep No.GJ.7.H 5296 had died.
13. Advocate of the opposite side has stated in the list of opponents that Sr.No.1 to 8 may be exhibited. This means that the other side has admitted contents of complaint filed by driver of the truck. No evidence is led by the other side.
14. No witness is examined in this case. However, this complaint shows that accident had taken place due to negligence of the deceased. He was driving the Sumo Motor and was coming from opposite side. Truck was on left hand side of the driver. However, the deceased took his Sumo on the wrong side and collided with the truck. This is the evidence. It shows that accident has taken place due to negligence of the car driver who died due to the accident. Thus accident has occurred due to negligence of driver of the Sumo Tata and due to this driver of the Sumo Tata died. Hence, I decided issue No.1 as above.”
4. In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Tribunal, no case is made out for interference. The appeal is devoid of any merits and hence the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd