JUDGMENT V.K. Gupta, C.J.—This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimants/appellants against the judgment dated 10th May, 1993 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Kangra at Dharamshala in MACT Case No. 26/1990, whereby the claim petition has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal. 2. Rameshwar Kumar, deceased at the relevant time was working as Sub-Divisional Officer (Electrical) with the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and was drawing, as on the date of accident, monthly salary of Rs. 3700/-. As on the date of accident his age was 44 years. 3. On 22nd February, 1990 at about 8.00 p.m. the deceased Rameshwar Kumar received injuries in the course of the use of motor vehicle No. HP-038-2403 while this bus was in the process of being reversed and the deceased was getting down from the front door of the bus. Between the claimants and the respondents there was a dispute in the claim petition as to the reason about the deceased getting down from the bus while it was in the process of being reversed. Whereas the case of the claimants/appellants was that the deceased was pushed out, the story put forth by the respondent was that he himself jumped out while the bus was in the process of being reversed. 4. The following four Issues were framed by the Tribunal during the course of the trial:— 1. Whether deceased Rameshwar Kumar Dhiman received injuries in an accident caused by/with bus No. HP 038-2405 of the respondent-Corporation as alleged ? OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is found in affirmative, whether accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver/respondent No. 3? OPP. 3. To what amount the petitioners are entitled to as compensation? OPP. Parties. 4. Relief. 5. Issue No. 1 was treated as redundant because the number of the bus was wrongly quoted as HP 038-2405 since later on it was corrected to read as HP 038-2403 which, as admitted by the respondents also in fact was the bus involved in the accident. 6. OPP. Parties. 4. Relief. 5. Issue No. 1 was treated as redundant because the number of the bus was wrongly quoted as HP 038-2405 since later on it was corrected to read as HP 038-2403 which, as admitted by the respondents also in fact was the bus involved in the accident. 6. Finding on Issue No. 2 was returned by the Tribunal in favour of the appellants/claimants and against the respondents and despite this the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition without awarding any compensation in favour of the appellants/claimants on the ground that there was Novus actus intervemeus, that is, there was a break in the chain causation and hence it could not be said that the deceased had died as a result of the injuries sustained by him because of the aforesaid accident. The Tribunal by a very elaborate exposition of law with reference to the material facts of the case, if I may say so, very brilliantly cited the aforesaid juristic principle applicable to the facts of the present case and came to the conclusion that a proper link could not be established between the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased at the time of the accident and the cause of the death, especially in the light of the medical evidence on the point. In paras 18 and 19 of the judgment of the Tribunal by very appropriately analysing the facts, and critically examining the medical evidence especially with respect to the ailment from which the deceased was suffering, namely, Poly radioculopathy, Posterior demyclinating L.G.B. etc. and applying the principles as enunciated Internal Medicine, Volume II, Eleventh Edition, Chapter 348 with particular reference to Demyelinating Diseases, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that these Demyelinating diseases could be distinguished on the basis of the clinical history, examination and pathalogical findings as, (i) multiplie sclerosis, (ii) acute disreminated encephalomyelities and (iii) acute necrotizing hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis. Apparently "Multiple Sclerosis" having been the focal point in the course of discussion in the judgment of the Tribunal, the aforesaid finding was returned by the Tribunal against the claimants on the basis of the Tribunals, very well reasoned and analytical appraisal of the forensic medicine aspects on the issue. Fully appreciating the aforesaid approach adopted by the Tribunal, I record my absolute concurrence with the reasoning of the Tribunal and uphold the Tribunals finding on Issue No.3. 7. Fully appreciating the aforesaid approach adopted by the Tribunal, I record my absolute concurrence with the reasoning of the Tribunal and uphold the Tribunals finding on Issue No.3. 7. However, the fact remains that even based on Tribunals own finding on Issue No.2, the deceased had received injury because of the aforesaid accident, even though this injury has been held, and rightly so by the Tribunal, not to be a cause of the death of the deceased. The fact which thus emerges is that the deceased had received the aforesaid injuries as a result of the accident and he had to undergo 4-5 surgeries in connection thereto and had to suffer on this account. 8. For having received the aforesaid injuries, the deceased and, after his death, his legal representatives in law are entitled to be adequately compensated. 9. In the absence of positive evidence on this subject whereby pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss could be quantified, I feel that based on overall consideration of the relevant aspects involved in this case, an amount of Rs. 75,000/- in lump sum should a reasonable compensation which the appellants deserves to be awarded in this case, even though because of the peculiar facts and circumstances I am of the considered opinion that this is a case where the respondents cannot be fastened with any liability to pay interest on the aforesaid amount of compensation for any period and at any rate. 10. The appeal accordingly is partly allowed. Based on the aforesaid observations, award in the amount of Rs. 75,000/- is passed in favour of the appellants and against respondents No.1 and 2. Respondents No.1 and 2 shall pay this amount to the appellants or deposit the same in this Court Within four weeks from today. If the amount is deposited in this Court, the appellants shall be disbursed this amount upon their making an application for this purpose. If the respondents fail to do the needful within four weeks from today, they shall be liable to pay interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 75,000/- at the rate of 12% per annum from today until the amount is actually paid to the appellants. The appeal allowed partly. No order as to costs. -