1 By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant – GSRTC has challenged the judgment and order dated 13th December 1995 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Nadiad in MAC Petition No.683 of 1986 whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant.
2 The short facts of the present appeal are that the deceased was working as a Driver with the appellant Corporation and on the fateful day i.e. on 26th August 1984 he was on duty as a Driver of ST Bus bearing No.GRR 9662 on the route of Ahmedabad – Baria. It is the case of the claimants that when the said bus reached on the bridge of Shedi river, another ST Bus bearing No.GRT 7633 came from the opposite direction and while trying to overtake another vehicle, it dashed with the ST Bus being driven by the deceased. In the said accident deceased - Nizamuddin Makrani received grievous injuries and later on died because of the injuries sustained by him. The claimant, therefore, filed claim petition claiming the compensation of Rs.7 lakhs.
3 The Tribunal considering the evidence on record has awarded Rs.4 lakhs along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum to the claimants. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the GSRTC challenging the same.
4 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no nexus between death of the deceased and the injuries sustained by him in the accident. He submitted that the accident had taken place on 26th August 1984 while deceased died on 15.12.1990 and therefore deceased survived for a period of more than six years after the accident. He further submitted that late Shir Nizamuddin resumed his duties with effect from 9th January 1986 and has also filed MAC Petition No.683 of 1996 for compensation.
6. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that after the accident the deceased was all through out under medication and because of putrefaction of right femur bone and failure of liver due to the accidental injuries deceased had died.
7. Dr Shaileshkumar Parikh has stated in his evidence that the death of deceased Nizamuddin was not result of injuries suffered by him in the accident. Further, the Board of Referee has issued Fitness Certificate to the deceased pursuant to which deceased resumed the duties with effect from 9th January 1986. Thus, there is no nexus between the injuries sustained in the accident and cause of death of the deceased. Therefore the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the claim of the claimant under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore the same required to be set aside.
Hence, the judgment and award of the Tribunal is set aside. If the amount is already disbursed to the claimants, the same may not be recovered from them. However, the balance amount, if any, lying the FDR be refunded to the appellant – GSRTC along with interest.
8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd