By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellants - original claimants have challenged judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Aux) at Nadiad in MAC Petition No.2087 of 2010 whereby the Tribunal has rejected the claim petition, preferred by the claimants.
2 The short facts of the present appeal as set out in the claim petition are that on 2/3 October, 2010, that the deceased was traveling as a pillion rider for returning to Nadiad on his friend's motorcycle bearing No. GJ-23-F-7441. It is the case of the claimants that the said motorcycle was driven by the opponent no.1 rashly and negligently and while they were passing through the place of incident. At that time, one unknown truck dashed their Motorcycle from behind and due to the said impact, the deceased was thrown on the road and died on the spot. The driver of the truck had ran away with the truck and therefore, the number of the truck could not be disclosed. It is also their case that this accident took place due to sudden application of brakes by the driver of the motorcycle. The claimants being wife and children of the deceased filed aforesaid claim petition claiming the total compensation of Rs.16,50,000/-.
3 The Tribunal after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record has rejected the claim petition by judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Aux) at Nadiad in MAC Petition No.2087 of 2010.
4. Mr.
Paresh M. Darji, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has committed grave error in not considering the aspect that the driver of the Motor Cycle joined as opponent no.1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Aux) at Nadiad on 02.01.2012, while deciding the case has committed an grave error that the deceased is third party and innocent between the two wrong doer of the accident, he was a pillion drive and one unknown truck dashed their Motorcycle from behind and thus, the deceased has expired so, the accident took place because of the negligence of the two independent tortfeasors.
5. In view of the fact neither the Insurance Company nor owner of the truck was joined as a party in M.A.C. Petition No. 2087 of 2010, nor the owner/driver of motor cycle is a wrongdoer, the claimants are not entitled to get compensation from the respondents.
6. The view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper. Hence, the present First Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
[K.S.Jhaveri, J.] siddharth// Top