[1] By way of present appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and award dated 20.08.1998 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Banaskantha at Palanpur in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.19/1992 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the said petition.
[2] The facts of the present case are that on 13.11.1991, at about 10 a.m., the accident took place. In the said accident, deceased Shrim Umedram Panchal sustained grievous injuries and his son Maheshkumar had taken him to Chhapi Hospital on his scooter bearing No.GAQ-2730. During the treatment, said Umedram Panchal expired and, hence, claim petition was filed by the original claimants for compensation for an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs.
[3] Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the accident took place in the year 1991 and at that time the deceased was aged about 50 years. He submitted that there is no nexus between the injuries and death of the deceased. He submitted that the deceased person had sustained injuries in the accident. He submitted that the tribunal has committed an error in saying that there is no evidence on record that the death of the deceased caused due to injuries. He submitted that the fracture of tibia and fibula are such that it would not result into death of a person. He further submitted that the tribunal has wrongly interpreted the panchama at Ex.45 with respect to the position of the truck, and not believing that the scooter was on its correct side while truck was on its wrong side, as a result of which it dashed with the scooter and caused damage to the extent of Rs.7,000/-. He submitted that the tribunal has committed an error in observing that the deceased was sick and may not be doing any business, so there may not be any income, though the income of the deceased was proved by the appellants which has not been rebutted by any evidence by the opponents. He submitted that nobody advised to do postmortem and, therefore, the same is not produced on record. He therefore urged that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award of the tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside.
[4] Heard learned advocates for the respondents and they opposed the present appeal and submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
[5] Having considered the submissions of rival parties and perused the evidence on record and impugned judgment and award, it appears that the tribunal while considering the evidence produced before it, rejected the claim petition. It also appears that the tribunal has examined the claimant No.1 and observed that the claimants have not produced any medical certificate or any other evidence about the disease of his father and for which disease he had taken his father to the Hospital at Chhapi. The claimant has not produced any medical certificate of Chhapi Hospital. The Tribunal has also observed that no postmortem was performed and there is no evidence on record that the deceased person died due to injuries sustained in the accident. It is pertinent to note that the deceased was kept as indoor patient for one month and 10 days at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and there was amputation of his leg and, thereafter, he was discharged from the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and he was brought to his village. The tribunal, while considering the evidence on record, has observed in paragraph No.10 which reads thus:-
"In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the burden of proof is upon the applicants that the deceased had died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. It appears from the record of this case and from the petition itself and from the deposition of the petitioner No.2 that in fact the deceased was sick on the date of the accident and he was under treatment and he was discharged from the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad on 23-12-91. Now, the petitioners have not examined the doctor who had given treatment at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and there is no expert opinion that the death can be caused due to the injuries sustained in the accident. According to me, it is not disputed that the deceased had sustained injuries in the accident but there is no evidence on records that in fact the death of the deceased is caused due to the injuries sustained in the accident. It appears from the petition also that the deceased had convulsions and therefore the deceased had died but it was the mere opinion of Ayurvedic Doctor that there must be tetanus but from mere such presumption, it cannot be said that tetanus was also due to the injuries sustained in the accident. It must be noted that the deceased was admitted in the hospital on 13-11-91. Hence, there is no nexus between the injuries and the death of the deceased. Even if it is believed that the deceased had sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck No.GRO-4164 and driver of scooter No.GAQ-2730, then also, there is no evidence on record that in fact the deceased has died due to the injuries sustained in the accident."
[6] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the impugned judgment and award do not merit any interference in this appeal. The impugned judgment and award taken in its overall perspective, is in my opinion, not assailable. I agree with the assessment of the evidence on the part of the Tribunal, the conclusions drawn therefrom and the findings of the fact recorded.
[7] In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
[ K. S. JHAVERI, J. ] vijay Top