JUDGMENT :

1. The present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is preferred by the appellants who are original claimants, to challenge the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Rajkot in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.2118 of 1997 dated 20.02.2007 for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,15,000/- with 9% interest p.a. to the claimants. The appeal is filed for further enhancement of Rs.4,85,000/- as mentioned in the memo of appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that one Chandubhai Hamirbhai Virda had filed Claim Petition No.2118 of 1997 for awarding compensation of Rs.6 lakhs with interest @ 15% p.a. as he had sustained bodily injuries on his right thigh. He also got fracture and he has also sustained injuries on head, leg, chest, ribs and other parts of body. At the relevant time of accident, he was aged about 32 years and he was earning Rs.4,000 per month, as he was working as a driver. On 06.07,1997, the case of the claimants that he was driving the truck bearing registration No.GRP-5877 on his correct side with moderate speed, at that time, the driver of the truck bearing registration No.HR-38-2443 came in wrong side with full speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the truck of the applicant. The offence was registered before the Bagodara Police Station vide C.R. No.92 of 1997 against the driver of the truck. The accident has occurred near Mithapur-Ghogha bridge, near Bagodara police station and therefore, the claim petition is filed by the injured for the compensation against opponents No.1, 2 and 3 who are jointly and severally liable, initially for Rs.4 lakhs and subsequently, it was enhanced to Rs.6 lakhs. It is pertinent to note that during the trial, the original applicant – Chandubhai Hamirbhai Virda has expired and therefore, his heirs and legal representatives are brought on record. The National Insurance Company has filed its written statement at Exh.13, raising several disputes and United India Insurance Company has also filed its written statement at Exh.72. Thereafter, the issues were framed at Exh.24 and evidence was led and the Tribunal has considered only actual medical bills of Rs.1,02,000/- and actual loss of income for four months and awarded total amount of Rs.1,15,000/- to the claimants. Though the original applicant who received injuries in the said accident, has expired during the pendency of the claim petition and therefore, the present appeal is preferred by the heirs of the original claimant.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah for the original claimants – appellants herein has brought to my notice from the record that deceased Chandubhai Hamirbhai Virda was taking continuous treatment from various hospital at Rajkot, Jamnagar and Mumbai during the period from 1997 to 2003 and he has pointed out the various medical papers from Exh.106 to Exh.118 and further he has referred to Exh.88 to Exh.91 which indicate that the treatment of the original claimant – Chandubhai Hamirbhai Virda was going on during the period from 1997 to 2003 and thereafter he has expired during the pendency of the claim petition. It is submitted that there is nexus between the accident and death caused due to injuries received from the accident to the original applicant. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have granted more compensation considering the various aspects of the matter, more particularly the loss of dependency and also under the head of conventional amount. He has submitted that the postmortem is not carried out by the relatives of the injured. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the claimants has relied on the decision in the case of Ranchhodbhai Somabhai versus Babubhai Bhailalbhai reported in 1982 (1) GLR 785, more particularly Para : 13, which reads as under :

“13. Having regard to the evidence on record, we are clearly of the opinion that it was not correct to hold that there was no di