1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 03.05.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morbi in Claim Case No. 318 of 1989 whereby the claim case of the claimants came to be partly allowed by awarding compensation in sum of Rs.20,000/-
2.0 On 02.05.1989 when one Lombabhai who was son of applicant Nos. 1 and 2 was in the Tractor No. GJY 9045 which was stationary vehicle near Morbi on national highway, one Semi Luxury Bus driven by opponent No.1, came with full speed and dashed with said stationary tractor with the trolley. Lombbhai was sitting in the Tractor and when the Bus dashed with the tractor, he fell down and sustained injuries. He was taken to the Civil Hospital, Morbi and during treatment he died on 18.06.1989. The claimants therefore, preferred the aforesaid claim case, wherein the Tribunal has passed the aforesaid award. This appeal is at the instance of the claimants for enhancement.
3.0 Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants-original claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in granting only Rs. 20,000/- as compensation.
4.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant further relied on the decision in case of Ranchhodbhai Somabhai by his heirs : Somabhai Vajabhai and another versus Babubhai Bhailalbhai and others reported in 1982 G.L.H. 28 more particularly in para 12 wherein it is held as under:
"12.
Having regard to the evidence on record, we are clearly of the opinion that it was not correct to hold that there was no direct and proximate connection between the accident injury and the untimely demise of the deceased. True it is that the death was not all at once or at a point of time proximate to the date of accident. It is also true that there is no medical evidence regarding the cause of death. However, the direct testimony of the appellant Somabhai clearly establishes, when appreciated in the light of the medical evidence, that the death was inevitably linked with the accident injury. Tested by the yardstick of probabilities and consistency with itself, the rest of the evidence and the circumstances of the case, the appellant's evidence emerges unscathed and there is no reason to reject it. The surrounding circumstances also point in the same direction. There was no definitive break, no unexplained interval, no yawning hiatus so as to snap the link between the accident injury and its tell-tale physical consequences and the untimely death. The principle after-effect of the accident injury, namely the urinary difficulty, is shown to have persisted throughout the interval of time between the date of accident and the date of death and treatment to relieve the deceased of the same is also shown to have been administered all during the said period on different occasions. We cannot overlook the fact that the deceased was a youth in the prime of his life. HE was healthy and suffered from no disease prior to the accident. Young men, do not die suddenly; some cause has to be found for their death. Where one is manifest on the record of the case, it would be ignoring the reality to close eyes to the same and to conjecture that the death could possibly have resulted due some other undisclosed cause when not a scintilla of it is perceivable. The fact that no medical evidence was led to precisely establish the cause of death is a matter of no consequence on the state of evidence on record. As we have pointed out earlier, it might not be possible in all cases to lead the evidence of experts. That apart, when the direct and circumstantial evidence tending to establish the link between the accident injury and death goes unchallenged, as in the present case, it would be idle to insists upon the fulfillment of such a requirement. We are therefore, of the view that the Tribunal in the instant case, reached the conclusion which it was impossible to arrive at on the evidence on record, when it held that the death was not the result of the accident injury. We reverse the finding of the Tribunal on that point and hold that the death of the deceased had direct and proximate connection with the accident injury.
5.0 Learned advocate submitted that the above referred citation which was relied upon by the claimants, was not considered by the learned Tribunal and in that view of the matter the matter requires consideration.
6.0 Heard learned advocate for the appellants and perused the documents on record. It is found that the learned Tribunal has not considered the above referred decision which was placed reliance by the learned advocate for the appellants-original claimants and granted only Rs. 20,000/- as compensation. In that view of the matter interest of justice would be met by remanding the matter. The judgement and award of the learned Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide afresh after considering all the evidence. It will be open to the claimants to lead their evidence to support the case. The Tribunal shall hear the claim petition and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year from the date of writ of this order. With this direction, the appeal stands disposed of. No Costs.
7.0 Record and Proceedings to be sent back forthwith to the concerned Tribunal.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru* Top