1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award of the M.A.C.T., Bhavnagar, dated 31.07.1996, rendered in M.A.C.P. No.324 of 1991, whereby the tribunal awarded Rs.4,16,000/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 15 per cent.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that on the date of alleged accident, while the deceased-Sahdevsinh was standing near a tea stall at Savarkundla, he was dashed by a car being driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent No.5, owned by respondent No.6 and insured by the present appellant. As a result thereof, the deceased received severe bodily injuries and later on expired. Hence, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 being the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased-Sahdevsinh filed the aforesaid claim petition, wherein the tribunal passed the impugned award. Hence, the present appeal.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant raised various contentions. He submitted that the tribunal committed an error in passing the impugned judgment and award. The tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record in its proper perspective. The tribunal ought to have held that the claimants are entitled to claim expenses, only towards medicines and treatment etc.. He has, therefore, prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. In support of his submissions, the learned Advocate for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in “G.S.R.T.C. VS. AMISHKUMAR VINODBHAI & ORS.”, reported in 1996 3 GLR 212.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 7 to 9 have opposed the appeal and have prayed to dismiss the same as being without merit. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
6. The case of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 before the tribunal was that on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, the deceased-Sahdevsinh received severe bodily injuries and later on expired. The factum of accident stands proved by the evidence in the form of FIR(Exhibit-55) and Panchnama(Exhibit-56) etc.. The tribunal, hence, rightly held that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are entitled to claim compensation.
7. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the tribunal has awarded Rs.4,16,000/- to respondent Nos. 1 to 4. However, while doing so the tribunal failed to take into consideration the fact that the deceased met with the accident on 26.06.1991, whereas he expired on 03.12.1992 i.e. after nearly one and a half year of the alleged accident, pending aforesaid claim petition. Hence, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that in view of the the decision of this Court in “G.S.R.T.C. VS. AMISHKUMAR VINODBHAI & ORS.”(Supra) respondent Nos. 1 to 4 shall be entitled to only claim expenses towards only towards medicines and treatment etc., requires to be accepted.
8. The tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of estate, Rs.30,000/- under the head of medical expenses and transportation charges, special diet etc., Rs.30,000/- towards actual loss of income, considering the fact that the deceased expired one and a half year of the accident, which appear to be just and proper. Thus, in view of the decision of this Court referred to herein above, after deducting the aforesaid amounts, the appellant insurance company shall be entitled to refund of Rs.(4,16,000 – 80,000)=3,36,000/-.
9. In the result, the appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED. The original claimant shall be paid an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards compensation along with interest as awarded by the tribunal from the date of application, till its realization. The appellant-insurance company be refunded an amount of Rs.3,36,000/- lying in FDRs before the concerned tribunal along with interest, costs, if any. The judgment and awarded impugned in this appeal stands MODIFIED to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI,J.) Umesh/