1. By way of this appeal, the appellant- original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 have challenged the common judgement and award dated 30.07.2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Main), Kheda at Nadiad, in M.A.C.P. No. 1154 of 2008, whereby the tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the original claimants.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 23.8.2008 one Ranchhodbhai Abubhai Rathod was standing on the road. At that time one Maruti Car bearing registration No. GJ-15-K- 8750 came and dashed Ranchhodbhai Abubhai Rathod. As a result of the said accident, Ranchhodbhai Abubhai Rathod died on the spot. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.1154 of 2008 before the Tribunal for compensation. The Tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and dismissed the claim petition against which the present appeal is filed by the appellants-original claimants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in passing the impugned judgment and award. The tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. Therefore, he has prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The tribunal while considering the case of the claimants in paragraph No.9 has observed as under:-
“9. Now, the another important question requires to be considered whether the accident took place on the public place ? Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation or not ? Normally public place to be understood in the contact way easy excess to the public not permitted. Substantially contention by Insurance Company, one Sirajbnhai Rahemadkhan Patha Exh.20, he has stated that he is serving in Ahmedabad-Baroda express way. For the maintenance of the highway, Ramke Infrastructure Company is given contract. To depose he has given authority, which is at Exh.21. He has also clearly stated that on the said Ahmedabad-Baroda Express way, Pedastrain, animal cart, two wheeler, three wheeler are restricted for which a notification is issued by District Magistrate, which is at Exh.22. On reading the said notification public objections were invited in the news paper on 17.04.2003 and dt. 18.04.2003. No objections were filed and accordingly the said notification issued under section 33(1)(b) of Bombay Police Act, 1951 and according to this notification, also circulated for the knowledge of ordinary public in the form of public notice which at Exh.23. On combine reading of notification and public notice of Exh.23 the pedastrain area found to be embargo to put any entry thereon. On trurning to the cross- examination it has come out that on both side of the express way there is an agricultural lands and if one has to go other side he has to cross express way for which over-bridge is contructed. But looking to the Panchanama it appears that the said accident occurred inside steel rallying, from where the found wheelers are running at the speed of more than 100 Km. Per hour. Thus, there is obvious breach on the part of the deceased.
4. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed no error in dismissing the claim petition of the appellants. Apart from that learned counsel for the appellants is not in a position to show anything from the record to take a different view in the matter. However, an endeavor is made that the Notification has only prescribed penalty. The said Notification is not passed under the M.V. Act and therefore, if there is any illegality on the part of the deceased, the appellants are not entitled for any compensation. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of any merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.
pawan [K.S.JHAVERI,J.]