JUDGMENT B.C. Patel, C.J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the judgment delivered by learned Single Judge in FAO No.20/1984 on 23.09.1988 whereby the amount of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the Tribunal') was enhanced and interest was also awarded on the said amount.
2. Learned Single Judge in para 3 of the impugned judgment has pointed out as to what were the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. All the submissions have been considered and the award has been modified by learned Single Judge. Its also pointed out that the Tribunal committed an error in deducting 15% on account of lump sum payment and, therefore, the same was corrected. The Tribunal also held that the appellants herein are entitled to claim Rs.1,15,000/- as compensation with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the application till payment in the ratio of 60:40 from the drivers owners and insurers subject to the limit of insurance being limited to Rs.50,000/- and interest @ 12% p.a. thereon.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal as well as the Appellate Court, namely, the learned Single Judge have committed grave error in arriving at the conclusion that Rs.300/- was required to be deducted for the expenditure to be made towards the deceased. It is further submitted that future prospects have not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal and, therefore, the impugned judgment is required to be modified.
4. A query was put to learned counsel for the appellants whether these submissions were made before the learned Single Judge and, if made, whether the same have been dealt with or not. Learned counsel was not in a position to point out from the text of the impugned judgment that these submissions were made. If these submissions were made before learned Single Judge and have not been considered, it was the duty of learned counsel for the appellants to file a review petition and point out to learned Singl Judge that the submissions, which were made, have not been taken into consideration. In that eventuality, learned Single Judge would have examined and would have expressed an opinion about the correctness of the statement and if the submissions had, in fact, been made, then learned Single Judge would have considered the same. In the instant case, knowing the procedure fully well, it was for learned counsel for the appellants to file an application before learned Single Judge and having not done so, it cannot be alleged before this Court that the submissions were made and the same were not taken into consideration.
5. It is in view of the aforesaid, whatever submissions made before learned Single Judge, in our opinion, have been taken into consideration. Moreover, this being Letters Patent Appeal, we are required to consider whether the legal evidence placed on record has been taken into consideration or not; or whether the Tribunal or the Appellate Court has followed the procedure in accordance with law or not; or there is any error or omission with regard to the question of law. Nothing has been pointed out in this matter in this behalf and in our opinion, we find no merits in the appeal and the same is required to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
6. In view of what is stated here-in-above, cross-objections filed by respondent No. 1 are not pressed by the learned counsel.
CMs No. 1525/2000, 9780, 14523, 15043/2004 Dismissed.