JUDGMENT : PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT 1. The present appeal is filed by the insurance company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (herein after referred to as ‘the MV Act’) against the Judgment and award dated 25.02.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Panchmahals at Godhra in Motor Accident Claims Petition (MACP) No. 928 of 2009. 1.1 Whereas, the original injured claimant, who had filed above said claim petition, has also filed cross – objection No.10 of 2021 in the present First Appeal. The injured claimant died during pendency of the present appeal on 25.12.2020, whose legal heirs are brought on record in appeal as well as cross objection. Nonetheless, hereinafter the parties will be referred as per their original position before the tribunal. 2. The short facts of the case appear to be as under; 2.1 On 27.02.2009, the injured claimant was riding Motorcycle bearing Registration No.GJ-9-KL-762 and Mr. Galabhai Manabhai Panda was pillion rider on the Motorcycle. His Motorcycle was dashed with a opposite vehicle i.e. Jeep bearing Registration No.GJ-17-C-7572 insured with insurance company (appellant herein), whereby both, rider and pillion rider of the Motorcycle have sustained injuries. 2.2 The claimant had received very serious injuries albeit died natural death during pendency of the present appeal. It was a case of original claimant that he was completely bedridden, as he has received brain injury causing intraparenchymal hemorrhage in the brain resulting in and irreversible brain damage, both organic and parenchymal resulting in incurable mental disease, producing permanent disability, which was assessed by doctor concerned as 100% on body as a whole. 2.3 Because of severe injuries sustained by the claimant, Claim Petition under Section 166 of the MV Act was filed and persuaded by his wife – Revaben as his next friend. 2.4 It appears that prior to the accident, the claimant was serving as an assistant teacher at Hareda Primary School and earning Rs.23,440/- p.m. at the time of accident. He was aged about 43 years. The claimant has prayed for a compensation of Rs.1,02,50,000/- for sustaining total permanent disability arising out of use of motor vehicle. 2.5 The claim petition was filed against driver, owner and insurance company of Jeep as well as owner and insurance company of Motorcycle. He was aged about 43 years. The claimant has prayed for a compensation of Rs.1,02,50,000/- for sustaining total permanent disability arising out of use of motor vehicle. 2.5 The claim petition was filed against driver, owner and insurance company of Jeep as well as owner and insurance company of Motorcycle. The insurer of both these vehicles appear to be common i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd. 2.6 After service of notice, the opponents appeared before the tribunal and filed written statement. Nonetheless, none of the opponents have tendered their oral evidence in support of their submission. Even, original opponent No.3 being insurer of Jeep and opponent No.5 of Motorcycle did not call upon driver of Jeep or any other eyewitness to rebut allegation of sole negligence of driver of the Jeep. 3. Following documents are submitted by claimant in support of his case; Sr. No. Description of Documents Exhibit/Mark 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Examination-in-Chief of Revaben Deposition of Dr. Balkishan Disability Certificate Deposition of Mr. Navinchandra Copy of Service Book of Injured Salary Slip of Injured Salary Slip of Manabhai Certificate For Leave Certificate for Leave Certificate regarding Salary Certificate for Birth Date Certificate for Salary Copy of Complaint Copy of R. C. Book Copy of Spot Panchnama Copy of Insurance Policy (Jeep) Copy of Driving License (Opp.No.1) Copy of R. C. Book (Motorcycle) Copy of Driving License (Injured) Copy of Charge-sheet Copy of Insurance Policy (Motorcycle) Copy of Refer Memo Copy of Injury Certificate Copy of Discharge Summary Copy of Discharge Summary Copy of Injury Certificate Copy of Injury Certificate Copy of Injury Certificate Medical Bills Copy of School Leaving Certificate Copy of Caste Certificate 38 41 42 44 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 3.1 It appears that FIR and charge-sheet came to be filed against driver of Jeep who had remained absent before the tribunal to rebut allegation of sole negligence. It further appears that after causing accident, he fled away from the spot (scene of accident) as panchnama did not record the presence of Jeep. It further appears that after causing accident, he fled away from the spot (scene of accident) as panchnama did not record the presence of Jeep. 3.2 The oral evidence of claimant is submitted by way of an affidavit of his wife at Exh.38, who was cross- examined by insurance company. Dr. Balkrishna N. Desai was examined by claimant at Exh.42 who has testified that the claimant has received total permanent functional disability. 3.3 It further appears that copy of judgment dated 28.08.2018 passed by MACT, Mahisagar in MACP No.1626 of 2017 (old MACP No.154 of 2009) filed by pillion rider i.e. Galalbhai Manabhai Panda submitted and referred by appellant – opponent No.3 with their notes of written arguments on 19.02.20219 at Exh.78 thereby contending interalia that in aforesaid decision decided prior in point of time wherein for the same accident, tribunal has found rider of motorcycle 18% negligent for causing the accident then in present proceeding as well, the claimant being rider of motorcycle be held 18% negligent. 3.4 After appreciating the evidence on record and taking note of above said judgment dated 28.08.2018 passed by the tribunal in a case of pillion rider of motorcycle who has sustained injuries arising out of same accident and observing principle of Res-Judicata, the tribunal has apportioned negligence between injured claimant and driver of the Jeep in a ratio of 18% : 82% respectively. Thus, tribunal has applied principle of res judicata by following decision of this Court in case United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Laljibhai Hamirbhai reported in 2007 (1) GLR 633 decided the issue of negligence. 3.5 Likewise, after considering the severity of injuries sustained by claimant resulted into 100% disability on body as a whole and taking into account proven income of the claimant, it has awarded total compensation of Rs.64,69,296/- under the following respective heads; Future economic loss Rs.51,19,296/ Pain, shock and sufferings Rs.3,00,000/ Special diet, attendant & Transportation Rs.2,00,000/ Loss of amenities of life and loss of expectations of life Rs.4,00,000/ For future medical expenses Rs.1,00,000/ For future attendance charges Rs.1,50,000/ Medical Bills Rs.2,00,000/ Total Compensation Rs.64,69,296/ 3.6 The tribunal having found claimant negligence to the accident of 18% but directed opponent Nos. 4 and 5 i.e. owner and insurance company of motorcycle to pay 18% of total compensation i.e. 11,64,473/- with 9% interest from the date of petition till its realization. 4 and 5 i.e. owner and insurance company of motorcycle to pay 18% of total compensation i.e. 11,64,473/- with 9% interest from the date of petition till its realization. Thus, insurance company of motorcycle i.e. opponent No.5 was aggrieved by that part of judgment and award, has challenged by way of present appeal. As stated earlier, the insurance company of Jeep and motorcycle is common. 3.7 Similarly, original claimant is also aggrieved by the decision of the tribunal holding him 18% negligent on the basis of earlier decision referred in the case of pillion rider as referred herein above. Therefore, he has chosen to file cross – objection in the appeal. 4. Submissions of appellant; 4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati appearing with learned advocate Mr. H. G. Mazmudar has vehemently submitted that the tribunal has committed serious error by not deducting 18% of amount from total compensation when it has held the injured claimant contributory negligent to the accident of 18%. He would submit that claim petition was filed under section 166 of MV Act, once tribunal has found claimant contributory negligent, it requires to slice down the award amount to the extent of negligence of claimant. 4.2 Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati, has relied upon earlier decision dated 28.08.2018 rendered by the MACT, Mahisagar in MACP No. 1626 of 2017 (Old MACP No.154 of 2009) rendered in a case of pillion rider of motorcycle. Learned advocate has taken us through the body of judgment and would submit that when the tribunal in prior in point of time has decided the issue of negligence for the accident in question, then such decision so far as the issue of negligence would apply in pending claim petition arising out of the same accident. 4.3 Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati would further submit that the tribunal has not committed any error by referring and relying upon earlier decision rendered by the tribunal in MACP No.1626 of 2017 filed by the pillion rider of motorcycle. According to him principle of resjudicata would apply to the facts of the present case. Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati would submit that earlier decision rendered in a case arising out of the same accident is binding to the tribunal. According to him principle of resjudicata would apply to the facts of the present case. Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati would submit that earlier decision rendered in a case arising out of the same accident is binding to the tribunal. To buttress his arguments, he has relied upon a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Laljibhai (supra) and decision dated 27.09.2023 passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in First Appeal No.3009 of 2021 with First Appeal no.1270 of 2022 with First Appeal no. 2859 of 2021. 4.4 Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati further submitted that considering the nature of injuries sustained and in absence of any evidence brought on record by claimant, compensation under the head of future medical expenses ought not to have been granted and higher compensation has been awarded under the head of future attendant charges. 4.5 Thus, Mr. Nanavati has requested this Court to accept the above stated submission and prayed to allow the appeal. 5. Submissions of Respondent – original claimants 5.1 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. MTM Hakim with learned advocate Mr. Mohsin Hakim would submit that there is no merit in the submissions of appellant that earlier decision of tribunal rendered in MACP No.1626 of 2017 would apply and operate as Resjudicata in the present case. He has specifically drawn our attention that in the said claim petition, only driver, owner and insurance company of Jeep were joined and neither claimant being rider of motorcycle nor owner and insurance company of motorcycle were joined. He has submitted that the tribunal has committed a serious error of law in applying decision of this Court in case of Laljibhai (supra) and erroneously held that earlier decision of tribunal passed in 1626 of 2017 will operate as Resjudicata. 5.2 According to him, tribunal has not at all appreciated aforesaid facts and failed to consider Section 11 of the CPC as well as wrongly applied decision rendered by learned single Judge in case of Laljibhai (supra) whereby a serious error of law committed by the tribunal which requires to be undone by this Court. He has further submitted that basic ingredients of Section 11 of the CPC as well as principle laid down by this Court in Laljibhai (supra) is not germane in the present case. He has further submitted that basic ingredients of Section 11 of the CPC as well as principle laid down by this Court in Laljibhai (supra) is not germane in the present case. 5.3 He has taken us through FIR, Panchnama and chargesheet which are produced on record before the tribunal which were not at all dealt with by tribunal while deciding the issue of negligence. He would submit that when driver of Jeep fled away after causing accident and he was charge-sheeted after completion of investigation by police, then burden is duly discharged by claimant so far as sole negligence of driver of Jeep is concerned. 5.4 He would further submit that as per the settled legal position of law that when driver of offending vehicle whose negligence is alleged by claimant did not remain present before the tribunal to rebut such allegation, then adverse inference requires to be drawn against such driver. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a decision of this Court in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jentibhai Khimjibhai Parmar reported in 2017 ACJ 2809 and contended that this Court in similar facts and circumstances wherein driver who was charge-sheeted for causing accident remained absent, adverse inference was drawn against him by holding him sole negligent. 5.5 So far as aspect of compensation is concerned, he would submit that claimant had sustained very serious injuries resulting into total disablement and died during pendency of present appeal in vegetative state who required constant care and help to perform day to day activity then considering the totality of facts and circumstance of the case, the tribunal has not committed any error in awarding compensation under respective heads including those which are objected by appellant – insurance company. Under the instruction of his clients, he has reported to this Court that awarded amount so deposited by insurance company was already disbursed and invested by tribunal and by now, such invested amount is also fully received by legal heirs of the claimant. 5.6 Thus, he has requested this Court to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross- objection by holding that tribunal has committed an error of law while deciding the issue of negligence based on principle of Resjudicata whereby it has wrongly held claimant negligent to the extent of 18% for causing accident. 6. 5.6 Thus, he has requested this Court to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross- objection by holding that tribunal has committed an error of law while deciding the issue of negligence based on principle of Resjudicata whereby it has wrongly held claimant negligent to the extent of 18% for causing accident. 6. No further and other arguments have been canvassed by both the sides. The rest of the respondents, though served have chosen not to appear and respondent No.3 was remained unserved happens to be owner of the Jeep, who is otherwise not required to be heard as his interest is taken care by the appellant – insurance company. 7. Points for consideration 7.1 Whether in the facts and circumstance of the case, the tribunal has committed any error of law by applying principle of Resjudicata by placing reliance upon the earlier decision rendered by another tribunal arising out of the same accident whereby holding the claimant 18% negligent for causing the accident? 7.2 Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, any negligence can be attributed to the claimant for causing accident or not? 7.3 Whether in the facts and circumstance of the case, any interference required by this Court in compensation so awarded by the tribunal? 8. Appreciation of submission – Our Findings. 8.1 Before appreciating submissions made by respective learned advocates, we would like to refer Section 11 of the CPC which reads as under; “11. Res judicata .- No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. [Explanation I .-The expression "former suit" shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto. Explanation II .-For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court. [Explanation I .-The expression "former suit" shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto. Explanation II .-For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court. Explanation III .-The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other. Explanation IV.-Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit. Explanation V.-Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused. Explanation VI .-Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating. Explanation VII .-The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree. Explanation VII .-The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree. Explanation VIII .-An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.]” 8.2 A plain reading of S.11 shows that to constitute a matter as being barred by res judicata, the following conditions must be satisfied, namely – (I) The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; (II) The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties or between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim; (III) The parties must have litigated under the same title in the former suit; (IV) The court which decided the former suit must be a Court competent to try the subsequent suit to the suit in which such issue is subsequently raised ; and (V) The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the Court in the first suit. 8.3 Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati has emphasized upon a decision of this Court in case of Laljibhai (supra) while making submission good to contend that principle of res judicata would apply in the facts of the present case. It is apposite to refer the following paragraphs of aforesaid decision; “8. The Privy Council in its decision rendered in the case of Syed, Mohamamd Saadat Ali Khan v. Mirza Wiquar Ali Beg and Ors. reported in A.I.R. (30) 1943 Privy Council at pg. It is apposite to refer the following paragraphs of aforesaid decision; “8. The Privy Council in its decision rendered in the case of Syed, Mohamamd Saadat Ali Khan v. Mirza Wiquar Ali Beg and Ors. reported in A.I.R. (30) 1943 Privy Council at pg. 115 has observed as under: In order that a decision should operate as res judicata between co-defendants three conditions must exist : (1) There must be a conflict of interest between those co-defendants , (2) it must be necessary to decide the conflict in order to give the plaintiff the relief he claims, and (3) the question between the co-defendants must have been finally decided. 9. Thus, the Privy Council has laid down that if the aforesaid three conditions stand satisfied, res-judicata can operate between the co-defendants also. In the present case these conditions are adequately satisfied. The co-opponents are common, the issue of negligence is decided finally and unless that issue was decided no relief could have been given to the claimant. In view of this decision, the submissions of Ms. Desai cannot be accepted. 9.1. In the case of Iftikhar Ahmed and Ors. v. Syed Meharban Ali and Ors. , the Apex Court has held as under: 13. Now it is settled by a large number of decisions that for a judgment to operate as re judicata between or among co-defendants, it is necessary to establish that (1) there was a conflict of interest between co-defendants; (2) that it was necessary to decide the conflict in order to give the relief which the plaintiff claimed in the suit; and (3) that the Court actually decided the question.” 8.4 If we read closely, three conditions are enumerated by Privy Council, res judicata can operate between co-defendants which are so clearly referred in referred paras. 8.5 Whereas, in the present case, in former Claim Petition being MACP No. 1626 of 2017, only one set of defendants i.e. driver, owner and insurance company of Jeep were joined. But second set of defendants i.e. driver, owner and insurance company of motorcycle were not joined. 8.5 Whereas, in the present case, in former Claim Petition being MACP No. 1626 of 2017, only one set of defendants i.e. driver, owner and insurance company of Jeep were joined. But second set of defendants i.e. driver, owner and insurance company of motorcycle were not joined. In absence of joining of another set of defendants against whom pillion rider of motorcycle could have maintained the claim petition, it would be far-fetched to say that even though one set of defendants were not party in former claim petition, still the decision rendered by the Court/ tribunal would bind them in later petition by applying principle of res judicata. If such contention would be accepted then apart from aforesaid S. 11 of CPC, it goes against basic principles of natural justice and no Court would like to commit such apparent mistake which was done by Tribunal in the present case. 8.6 So far as decision heavily relied upon by Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate for insurance company rendered by coordinate division bench of this Court in First Appeal No.3009 of 2021 and allied matters, wherein it appears that former claim petition decided earlier in point of time was filed by claimant who happens to be tortfeaser against other tortfeaser and after appreciating evidence on record, Tribunal has decided inter-se negligence of two set of tort-feasors as both of them were available on record albeit one as Claimant and other one as opponent. Naturally, when Tribunal has given its findings on issue of negligence in a claim petition wherein both tortfeaser were made party, then among such class of tortfeaser, such decision on the issue of negligence would be binding to them and they cannot later on complaint about the same in any subsequent proceedings which might have been filed by another claimant who was occupant of vehicle not a tortfeaser. So, according to us, Mr. Nanavati learned advocate having unnoticed such distinguishing facts has wrongly placed reliance upon the aforesaid decision in First Appeal No. 3009 of 2021 which is not helpful and support his submissions rather go counter to it. 9. So, according to us, Mr. Nanavati learned advocate having unnoticed such distinguishing facts has wrongly placed reliance upon the aforesaid decision in First Appeal No. 3009 of 2021 which is not helpful and support his submissions rather go counter to it. 9. Having appreciated the facts of the case, provisions of law as well as decisions rendered by this Court on the principle of Res judicata, it would emerge that if all codefendants are joined in any proceedings and any issue decided against them in any formal proceedings, such decision would bind them in later suit or proceeding not otherwise. The basic requirement to apply principle of Res judicata would be that parties to former suit or proceeding must be common between them any issue decided by Court than in later suit, such issue would bind them. Otherwise in absence of any defendant or the case may be party being not joined in former suit or proceeding, principle of resjudicata on any of the issue decided in former suit or proceeding can not be pressed into service in later suit or proceeding against such non-joined party. According to our opinion, such defendant/party cannot be put to disadvantages situation by pressing into service principle of Resjudicata. The doctrine of res judicata is a legal principle that prevents the same parties from re-litigating the same issues that have already been decided by a court. The principle of Resjudicata is based upon public policy and before it apply one need to observe principles of natural justice as to whether such party against whom it apply was made party earlier in former suit or proceeding, if not than Resjudicata would not apply in later suit or proceeding. 10. So, considering the aforesaid principle and facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed a serious error of law by wrongly applying principle of resjudicata, while deciding issue of negligence as in former claim petition, neither driver happens to be the claimant in present case nor the owner and insurance company of motorcycle were joined. So to that extent, observations of the tribunal while deciding issue of negligence requires to be interfered with by this Court which is dehors the provision of law requires to be quashed and set aside. Thus, it is hereby quashed and setaside. 11. So to that extent, observations of the tribunal while deciding issue of negligence requires to be interfered with by this Court which is dehors the provision of law requires to be quashed and set aside. Thus, it is hereby quashed and setaside. 11. This leads us to second point as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, any negligence can be attributed to the claimant for causing accident or not?. 11.1 It is remain undisputed before us that after filing of written statement neither driver nor owner of the Jeep remained present and no oral evidence has been laid by any of the opponents. 11.2 The FIR and charge-sheet came to be filed against driver of the Jeep which shows not only involvement of Jeep in the accident but rash and negligent driving on his part which has also come on record. The driver of the Jeep fled away after accident which prima facie shows his guilt for causing accident. Driver of the Jeep happens to be an eyewitness and best witness for insurance company to be examined to rebut allegation of his sole negligence. Since, he did not remain present for his oral evidence, then in absence of his oral evidence, no evidentiary value can be attached to his written statement. 11.3 Considering facts and circumstances of the case and decision of this Court in case of Jentibhai (supra) when driver of Jeep remained absent to rebut the allegations of his sole negligence, then adverse inference requires to be drawn against him would apply to the facts of the present case. The opponent has failed to discharge its burden to prove contributory negligence of claimant. 11.4 The upshot of said discussion would lead to one conclusion that there was sole negligence of Jeep driver for causing an accident and insurance company has failed to prove contributory negligence of injured claimant. According to us, the accident in question had taken place due to sole negligence on part of driver of Jeep involved in the accident for which driver, owner and insurance company of Jeep are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 12. So far as last point about compensation awarded by the tribunal is concerned, it is remained undisputed that claimant has sustained total disablement. Thereby he is completely disabled to do any work and died in vegetative state. 12. So far as last point about compensation awarded by the tribunal is concerned, it is remained undisputed that claimant has sustained total disablement. Thereby he is completely disabled to do any work and died in vegetative state. He was a school teacher aged about 43 years and survived for about 11 years albeit died natural death, then keeping in mind all such factors, this Court would not find any merit in submission of insurance company that compensation which is awarded by the tribunal under the head of future medical treatment and for attendant charges are on higher side. 12.1 At the same time, learned advocate Mr. Hakim appearing for the claimant would submit that claimant is satisfied with the compensation, so awarded by the tribunal. 12.3 So, Considering the nature of injuries, duration of treatment, vegetative state of claimant for such a long years till he survived, it cannot be gainsaid that any unjust and unreasonable amount of compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal which would requires our interference in the appeal. 12.4 Thus, we hereby confirmed the award passed by the tribunal so far as awarding compensation of Rs.64,69,296/- with proportionate cost and interest which should be borne by driver, owner and insurance company of Jeep are jointly & severally liable to pay compensation. Conclusion: 13. In view of above stated facts and position of law as clarified while determining the points framed by us, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the insurance company which requires to be dismissed with no order as to costs. 14. Whereas, the cross objection filed by original claimant is hereby partly allowed to the aforesaid extent by holding that tribunal has committed gross error of law by applying principle of res judicata in the facts of the present case and also hold that the accident in question had taken place due to sole negligence on part of driver of Jeep involved in the accident for which driver, owner and insurance company of Jeep are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The legal heirs of original claimant which are on record and entitled to receive total compensation so deposited by insurance company if so far not received from the tribunal. 15. The legal heirs of original claimant which are on record and entitled to receive total compensation so deposited by insurance company if so far not received from the tribunal. 15. Thus, in view of aforesaid, appeal filed by insurance company is dismissed with no order as to cost and cross-objection filed by the claimant is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned tribunal forthwith.