1. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 31.12.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Patan in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 4831 of 2002 (Old No. 618 of 2002) so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 3,28,500/- as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum.
3. It is the case of the appellant that on 09.04.2002 while Shri Vikramji Thakor was travelling in a Rickshaw bearing registration no. GJ-24 0054, a jeep being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed with the rickshaw as a result of which Vikramji sustained injuries on various parts of the body. The appellants being legal heirs and representatives of the deceased therefore filed claim petition to the tune of Rs. 4,85,500/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Mr.
Sinha, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the entire facts of the case and evidence on record and thereby erred in awarding adequate amount under various heads. He submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not pressing for the expert report on viscera to establish the cause of death.
5. As a result of hearing and perusal of records, this court is of the view that considering the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant sustained injuries as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the original opponent no. 1. Nothing is pointed out before this Court to take a contrary view. The Tribunal has finally quantified the amount of compensation at Rs. 3,28,500/-. It is required to be noted that admittedly it is a case of accidental death as registered in the hospital records. The Post Mortem was done. Even if the viscera report is not received, the same shall not vitiate the case of the appellants that the accident happened because of the negligence of the original opponent no. 1. At the most it can be said to be the fault on the part of the hospital authorities. However the claimants cannot be made to suffer for such a lapse. The factum of accident was reported and therefore this court is in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal and therefore do not see any reason for causing interference.
6. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top