ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. SUNANDABEN NARENDRAKUMAR JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is filed against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 10th December, 2001 in MACP No. 503 of 1999 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 6,56,738 with interest @ 9% per annum.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the deceased Narendra Kumar Joshi with his wife Sunandaben Narendrakumar Joshi were going in Maruti car, bearing No. GJ-l-AR-7268, from Mandvi to Ahmedabad through Limbdi. When they reached near Limbdi at about 4.00 a.m. on 6th November, 1998, a truck, bearing No. GJ-8-U-1177, driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed with the Maruti car. As a result thereof, the Maruti car was damaged and deceased Narendrakumar as well as his wife Sunandaben sustained injuries. Initially, they were admitted in the Limbdi Government Hospital and thereafter for further treatment they were shifted to Ahmedabad. Deceased Narendrakumar was operated by Dr. Hitesh Mehta and after the operation, in the hospital itself, within seven days, he expired. It gave rise to filing of two claim petitions, one being MACP No. 503 of 1999, preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased Narendrakumar Joshi on account of his death and another was preferred by injured Sunandaben, being MACP No. 504 of 1999. The Tribunal at the conclusion of the proceedings, as stated above, awarded compensation in MACP No. 503 of 1999 and also awarded compensation in MACP No. 504 of 1999 amounting to Rs. 1,09,000 and interest @ 9% per annum. We may record that no appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company against the award passed in MACP No. 504 of 1999 and the appeal is preferred only against the award passed in MACP No. 503 of 1999, which is the present appeal before this Court. We may also record that the cross objections, being cross-objections No. 100 of 2010, have been filed by the original claimants for enhancement of the compensation.

(3.) We have considered the judgment and the reasons stated by the Tribunal. We have also considered the record and proceedings. We have heard Ms. Fozadar, learned Advocate for Mr. Shalin N. Mehta for the appellant in the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company and Mr. J.V. Japee, learned Advocate, for the original claimants, appearing for the respective parties in the appeal and cross-objections.