JUDGMENT :

1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 14.08.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Panchmahals at Godhra, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 303 of 2007, by which, the claim petition of the claimant is partly allowed by the Tribunal, directing the opponents i.e. driver, owner and insurance company to pay the compensation of Rs.2,22,000/- with 9% interest per annum, to the claimants, jointly and severally.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that, on 02.01.2006, deceased – Ramabhai was going as pedestrian on left side of the road, at the relevant time, one motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-6-BH-855 came in rash and negligent manner, in endangering the human life and dashed with the deceased. As a result, the deceased has received serious injuries and ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries. The claimants i.e. two sons and widow have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. The notices issued by the Tribunal were served to the opponents i.e. driver, owner and insurance company. Only insurance company has appeared and filed its written statement at Exh.18 before the Tribunal denying the averments made in the claim petition. The Tribunal has framed the issued and led the oral as well as documentary evidence. After considering the submissions made by the respective parties, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,22,000/- with 9% p.a. interest to be paid to the claimants by the opponents, jointly and severally. Hence, the insurance company has preferred this appeal before this Court.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Dwivedi for the appellant – Insurance Company has mainly contended that claimant No.1 – Ranchhodbhai Ramabhai Varia was serving as Talati-cum-Mantri at the time of filing the claim petition, therefore, he could have been considered as dependent. He has submitted that no proof of age is produced on record since as per the claim petition, the proof of age of the deceased was mentioned as 62 years, whereas in the injury certificate, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 75 years. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in deducting the amount towards personal expenses as 1/4th, which should be atleast 1/3rd. The Tribunal has also committed error by applying multiplier of 6, which should be 5 in these facts. He has further submitted that there is no strict proof income of the deceased produced by the claimants and it is highly erroneous to presume that at the age of 75 years, the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. He has further submitted that there is no nexus between the accidential injuries and cause of death as neither doctor is examined by the claimant nor any post-mortem is carried out. Therefore, in absence of any conclusive evidence, the Tribunal has committed error in granting the claim petition by awarding Rs.2,22,000/-, by considering that the deceased was died due to the accident and in support of his contention about the nexus, he has cited the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport corporation Versus Srinivasa Murthy G.K. reported in (2018) III ACC 789 and another judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Manohar (deceased) Thr. LRs. reported in (2018) IV ACC 270 (DB). In those judgments, the Hon’ble Court have found that there is no nexus between the injuries and cause of death and therefore, he has submitted that the appeal may be allowed by dismissing the claim petition, or in the alternative, the amount of compensation may be reduced.

4. Per Contra, learned advocate Mr. Hakim for the respondents - original claimants has submitted that in the claim petition, the age of deceased was mentioned as 62 years and therefore, 6 multiplier is properly awarded by the Tribunal. He has submitted that since the claimant No.1 wa