JUDGMENT
V.K. Gupta, C.J.
1. This claim petition has been dismissed on the ground of limitation, but in view of the ratio laid down by their Lordships of the Apex Court in the case of Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya, , this claim petition now has to be treated as being within time.
2. Once the limitation aspect is over, it is found that the learned Tribunal even while framing all the issues returned the finding on the issue relating to rashness and negligence in favour of the appellant-claimant, but with respect to issue relating to the amount of compensation, the Tribunal merely observed that because the claim application was being dismissed as time-barred, appellant-claimant was not entitled to claim any compensation. There is no doubt in my mind that the learned Tribunal committed a material irregularity in not deciding the issue relating to the determination of compensation amount because by now it is very well established that even in such cases where the Tribunal decides to dismiss the claim petition either on a technical ground or on any other ground, yet the Claims Tribunal must determine the amount of compensation. There is a sound and a rational objective behind this well established policy inasmuch as if, in appeal the Tribunal’s findings with respect to the dismissal of the claim petition are reversed by the appellate court, the remand to the Tribunal for determination of the compensation amount is avoided and the appellate court based on the finding returned by the Claims Tribunal in respect of the determination of compensation amount has the advantage of re-examining that finding in the light of the evidence adduced and based on its re-appreciation. A copy of this judgment, therefore, be sent to all Claims Tribunals in the State with a direction to them to ensure that in future such material irregularity shall not be repeated.
3. As far as the present case is concerned, the learned counsel for the parties have agreed and consented that rather than remanding the matter to the Tribunal for its consideration on issue No. 6 with respect to the amount of compensation, based on the evidence available, I should myself determine the amount of compensation.
4. There is evidence that the claimant-appellant in fact sustained injuries. His own statement is supported by the statement of Dr. Naresh Galodha, who has clearly deposed that the appellant was admitted in the hospital from 19.2.1991 to 4.3.1991 and that he was being treated for multiple fractures. In light of the aforesaid evidence, according to me an amount of Rs. 50,000 shall be a reasonable and just amount of compensation which would include the interest liability for the entire intervening period, meaning thereby that even though the claimant-appellant will be entitled to receive Rs. 50,000 in all, he shall not be entitled to receive any amount of interest for any period at any rate from the date of the filing of the claim petition till date.
5. The appeal accordingly is allowed. The judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and an award of Rs. 50,000 is passed in favour of appellant. National Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 1, is held responsible to pay this amount to the appellant because undoubtedly the vehicle in question was insured with it. It is directed that the respondent No. 1 shall deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs. 50,000 in this court within the period of four weeks from today. On this amount being deposited, by a mere application the same shall be paid to the appellant by the Registry of this court. If, however, within four weeks from today this amount is not deposited by respondent No. 1, respondent No. 1 shall be liable to pay interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 50,000 at the rate of 12 per cent per annum starting from today until the aforesaid amount is paid.
C.M.P. No. 264 of 1993:
6. In view of the disposal of the main appeal, the present application is also dismissed.