JUDGMENT : M.D. Shah, J. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Surendranagar dated 31.7.2001 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.86 of 1991, the appellants-original claimants filed the present appeal praying for enhancement of the compensation. 2. The short facts leading to filing of this appeal are such that an accident occurred on 10.5.1990 at about 5.30 a.m., near Chamunda at Chotila on national highway road no.8, under the local limits of jurisdiction of Chotila Police Station of Surendranagar district and at the time of the accident the deceased Vajubhai Shivabhai was proceeding on his bi-cycle and when he reached near Chamunda at Chotila on national highway road, at that time, S.T.bus bearing registration no.GJ-1T-9257 came in rash and negligent manner with an excessive speed and dashed with the bi-cycle of the deceased Vajubhai Shivabhai, as a result of which, Vajubhai sustained serious bodily injuries. Therefore, he filed the claim petition bearing Motor Accident Claim Petition No.86 of 1991 claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- together with costs and interest from the opponents, on account of serious injuries and permanent partial disablement sustained to him in motor vehicle accident. But, during the pendency of the claim proceedings, injured claimed Vajubhai died on 16.4.1997 and therefore, legal heirs of deceased Vajubhai were joined as claimants. The learned Tribunal partly allowed the said claim petition and awarded Rs.20,000/- together with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realisation jointly and severally from both the opponents. Hence, this appeal is filed praying for enhancement of the said compensation. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Sejpal appearing for the appellants submitted that deceased Vajubhai received multiple fracture injuries to the skull and he underwent long treatment and because of the said injuries, he ultimately died and this fact is not considered by the learned Tribunal and by that committed error and, therefore, requested to enhance the compensation. 4. Learned advocate Mr. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Sejpal appearing for the appellants submitted that deceased Vajubhai received multiple fracture injuries to the skull and he underwent long treatment and because of the said injuries, he ultimately died and this fact is not considered by the learned Tribunal and by that committed error and, therefore, requested to enhance the compensation. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for S.T. Corporation submits that it is not proved by the claimant before the learned Tribunal that there was nexus between the cause of death and the injuries caused in the accident and the learned Tribunal has rightly evaluated the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that there is no nexus between the injuries caused in the accident and the death and therefore, just and adequate amount is awarded by the learned Tribunal and need not be interfered with. 5. Heard learned advocates for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment and award and perused the record and proceeding of the case. 6. It is an admitted fact that the deceased received serious head injuries and other injuries on various parts of the body in the accident and he went through a lengthy treatment but directly it was not established that the death was due to the injuries caused in the accident. The Tribunal has technically come to the conclusion that there is no nexus between the injuries and cause of death but it transpires from the evidence that after these accidental injuries, the deceased remained in various hospitals for considerable time and medical evidence to this effect i.e. injury certificate, discharge card are produced before the learned Tribunal. On perusing the certificate issued by Dr. Hemang Vasavada, a Consultant Neuro Physician of Rajkot, the deceased Vajubhai has sustained head injury with post traumetic epilepsy. He was on anti-epileptics for longer duration and according to the said doctor, such patient has to take anti-epileptic drugs for a longer duration, diffuse injury and post traumatic epilepsy and if improperly treated, it may end with complication like statas, epilepticus, aspiranain, pneumonitis, asphyxia and even death. The deceased survived for seven years after the accident and he underwent long treatment. 7. The deceased survived for seven years after the accident and he underwent long treatment. 7. Considering the medical evidence produced on record, the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and the prolonged treatment undergone by him till his death, I am of the opinion that if an additional amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is granted to the claimants, it will meet the ends of justice. 8. In view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed. The claimants are entitled to get Rs.2,00,000/- as additional amount of compensation from the opponents with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till realization. Decree be drawn accordingly. Office is directed to send the R & P, if lying in this Court, to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Appeal allowed.