1. Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 30.09.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in M.A.C.Ps. No.1199/2001 & 1200/2001 whereby, both the claim petitions were dismissed with costs.
2. The facts in brief are that on 11.07.1992 two persons, namely, Ismailbhai and Daudbhai, were travelling in a Truck bearing registration No. GJ-9-T- 5384 in the capacity of co-driver and cleaner respectively. It is the case of appellants, original claimants, that on the night of the fateful day, the said Truck was hijacked by unknown offenders and it was, thereafter, abandoned at some other place. However, the whereabouts of the above two persons were not known since then. In the year 1999, the legal heirs received Declaration from the competent Court regarding the death of the above two persons. Thereafter, the legal heirs preferred the above claim petitions claiming compensation of Rs.3.50 Lacs & 3.00 Lacs respectively. However, both the claim petitions were dismissed by common impugned award. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the above two persons were travelling in the Truck in question on 11.07.1992, which is the day on which they both went missing. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the complaint filed before the concerned Police Station in Maharashtra State to substantiate that the above two persons went missing on the date in question. It has been submitted that the above two persons died in a vehicle accident, while they were travelling in the Truck in question on the fateful day, as they have gone missing since then. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have entertained the claim petitions.
3.1 In support of the submission, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Company Ltd, AIR 2000 SC 1930 and on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ambalal Lallubhai Panchal v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 1999 (2) GLR 1164.
4. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that there is no evidence on record to establish that the above two persons died in a vehicle accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petitions.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
It is a matter of record that no evidence was produced before the Tribunal to prove that the above two persons had died and therefore, the claimants had applied for Declaration regarding the death of the said two persons. It is pertinent to note that there is also no evidence on record to establish that the vehicle in question met with an accident or any other overt act resulting into the death of the said two persons. In fact, the vehicle was found to be abandoned at some other place. Merely because the said two persons were lastly travelling in the Truck in question on the fateful day, it could not be concluded that they died in a vehicular accident.
6. The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants shall not apply to the present case since there is nothing on record to establish that the said two persons died in a vehicular accident. It is true that the said two persons were lastly travelling in the Truck. But, when there is nothing on record to prove that they died in a vehicular accident, the Tribunal was completely justified in dismissing the claim petitions. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and hence, find no reasons to entertain the present appeals.
7. Even otherwise, the alleged incident is of the year 1992 and the provision of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, under which the claim petitions were filed, came into effect only on 14.11.1994. Therefore, the claim petitions itself were misconceived and untenable in law.
8. For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*