1. The appellant herein has challenged the judgement and award dated 28.01.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux) at Surendranagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 797 of 1996, whereby the Tribunal has held the insurance company liable to satisfy the award.
3. The original claimants filed the aforesaid claim petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs in respect of the vehicular accident which occurred on 20.06.1996 while one Shri Shirishbhai was travelling in an car when a tanker driven by original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner dashed with the car wherein Shirishbhai expired. The Tribunal after hearing the parties awarded Rs. 9,60,120/- as compensation payable by the original opponents jointly and severally.
4. Ms.
Viraj Fozdar, learned advocate appearing for Ms. Megha Jani for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred gravely in holding the appellant insurance company liable to satisfy the award in the absence of any evidence on record that there was any nexus between the death of Shirishbhai and the accident in question.
4.1 Ms. Fozdar submitted that the accident happened on 20.06.1996 whereas he died on 03.02.1998. She submitted that on the date of accident i.e. on 20.06.1996 he was taken to Civil Hospital and discharged on the same day and therefore he was hospitalised in a orthopedic hospital for around 9 days wherein he was treated for injuries on face, teeth, shoulder and right ribs. Ms. Fozdar has drawn the attention of this Court to the certificate dated 20.06.1997 issue by Dr. Jyotin Shah wcherein it is mentioned that the deceased was under his care for valve diseased for last 10 years and after the accident his condition was stable.
5. Having heard learned advocate for the parties and having perused the papers on record, this Court is of the opinion that the contention raised by the appellant is required to be accepted inasmuch as the death of Shri Shirishbhai occurred on 03.02.1998 which is after almost one and half years of the date of accident. No post mortem is carried out. Only in the deposition of the claimant no. 1 it is mentioned that he was under continuous treatment but the same is not supported by any documentary evidence such as certificates, diagnosis reports or case files of hospitals to prove the nature of treatment administered to the deceased after the accident till his death. Moreover, the physician who had been examining the deceased was also not examined. In the examination in chief the claimant no. 1 stated that the deceased had no heart ailment which is contrary to the certificate dated 20.06.1997. In that view of the matter, the claim petition was required to be rejected as there seems to be no nexus between the accident in question and the death of the deceased.
6. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. The award of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside qua liability of the insurance company-present appellant. The amount deposited by the insurance company shall be refunded with proportionate interest. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top