1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and award dated 02.04.2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Auxi.), Ahmedabad, in M.A.C.P. No.65 of 2001, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the claimant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 22.3.2000 one Shravankumar Pusaji Prajapati was going with his brother on a bicycle. At that time one truck bearing registration No. GJ-1-T-7074 came and dashed the bicycle. As a result of the said accident, Shravankumar Pusaji Prajapati sustained grievous injuries and due to which he died. Therefore, the legal heir of the deceased filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.65 of 2001, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, for compensation. The Tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated herein above against which the present appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the tribunal erred in passing the impugned judgment and award. The tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. Therefore, he has prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents have opposed the appeal and have prayed to dismiss the same, as being without merit.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. As regards the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant with regard to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are concerned, I have gone through the impugned award and I find that the compensation awarded under the respective heads are just and appropriate and in consonance with the evidence on record and the law on the subject. Therefore, I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. However, an endeavour is made by the learned advocate for the appellant to reduce the pension received by the family of the deceased. I am of the view that the family members of the deceased are getting the pension because of the previous service of the deceased and for reward of the service. Hence, I find no reasons to entertain the present appeal.
6. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI,J.] pawan Top