The challenge in this appeal is to the impugned judgment and award dated 29/5/2000 passed by the Ld. M.A.C. Tribunal [Main], Rajkot, and the original opponent nos. 1 to 5, namely the appellant as well as respondent nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, were directed to pay said amount of compensation with running interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the realization. The Tribunal further directed that the liability and responsibility amongst opponents as 50% on the part of the original opponent nos. 1 and 2 [the appellant and the respondent no. 4 herein] on one hand and 50% on the part of the original opponent nos. 3, 4 and 5 [the respondent nos. 3, 5 and 6 herein]. The original opponent no. 2 – Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation challenged the impugned judgment and award by preferring this appeal. 2. As per the case of the original claimants, the accident occurred on 16/12/1998 between two vehicles, namely S.T. Bus No. GJ-18- V-536 and private Luxury Bus No. GJ-4-T-9968. It was the case of the claimants that at the time of accident, deceased Hareshbhai was aged 28 years, who was traveling in the aforesaid Luxury Bus and on account of the vehicular accident, the deceased sustained bodily injuries and he succumbed to the injuries and died. The original claimants filed the aforementioned claim petition under section 166 of the Act and in the said claim petition, filed an application for compensation under section 163-A of the Act at exh. 4. As submitted above, the impugned judgment and award came to be passed by the Tribunal under section 163-A below application exh. 4. So far as the main claim petition being M.A.C. Petition No. 468/1999 is concerned, Ms. Sheth, Ld. Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein, who are original claimants, upon verification, states that now the main claim petition under section 166 of the Act has been withdrawn on 8/10/2008 as per the Rojkam of said proceedings.
3. Ms. Bhatt, Ld. Advocate for the appellant – GSRTC, at the outset, submitted that so far as the instant appeal is concerned, the main contention, which came to be raised at the relevant time in the year 2001, when the appeal was preferred, was to the effect that once the application for compensation under section 163-A of the Act has been decided by the Tribunal, further proceedings of main claim petition under section 166 of the Act was not permissible. It is submitted that now, that part of the dispute is over for the simple reason that upon verification of the record and proceedings, it has been made clear that the main claim petition under section 166 of the Act has been withdrawn on 8/10/2008 and, therefore, the award passed under section 163-A of the Act has become final.
4. However, Ms. Bhatt, Ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding in-all Rs.1,74,500/- as compensation. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in not properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record.
5. Ms. Paurami Sheth, Ld. Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 [original claimants] supported the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal under section 163-A of the Act. It is submitted that as emerged from the record of the main matter, the original claim petition under section 166 of the Act came to be withdrawn on 8/10/2008 and thus, the order passed under section 163-A of the Act has attained finality.
6. Mr. Nanavati, Ld. Advocate for the respondent no. 6 Insurance Company of the luxury bus submitted that as per the structured formula under section 163-A of the Act, it cannot be said that the Tribunal erred in passing the award.
7. I have considered the submissions in context of the record and proceedings of the main matter. The Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award under section 163-A of the Act on 29/5/2000. The instant appeal came to be preferred in the year 2001. As submitted by Ms. Bhatt, Ld. Advocate for the appellant, the very purpose of filing the appeal was to the effect that despite the fact that the compensation came to be awarded on structured formula basis under section 163-A of the Act, the main claim petition under section 166 was pending at the relevant time. Since during the pendency of this appeal, the main claim petition under section 166 of the Act came to be withdrawn on 8/10/2008 and the award passed under section 163-A of the Act attained finality, as a matter of fact, the major part of the grievance ventilated by the appellant is, therefore, now over.
8. I have perused the impugned judgment and award dated 29/5/2000 rendered by the Tribunal under section 163-A of the Act and I have considered the evidence adduced by both the sides before the concerned Claim Tribunal in connection with the application exh. 4 under section 163-A of the Act. It transpires that the Tribunal took into consideration the structured formula and considering the monthly income ascertained by the Tribunal, so also considering even the age of the dependents and more particularly the age of the mother being 50 years at the time of the accident and death of her son, it cannot be said that the amount awarded by way of compensation is on higher side or requires any interference.
9. In above view of the matter, the appeal lacks merits and deserves dismissal.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
* Pansala.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.)