FA/1212/1986 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1212 of 1986 With CROSS OBJECTION No.53 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? -Yes. 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? -No. 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? -No. 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? -No. 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? -No. ========================================================= GUJ STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN - Appellant(s) Versus SAIYED RAHEMALI NAJUMIYA & 2 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MD PANDYA for Appellant(s) : 1, MR MP NAIK for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2. None for Defendant(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 13/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-Gujarat State Road FA/1212/1986 2/4 JUDGMENT Transport Corporation, original opponent no.2 has challenged the judgment and order dated 8/1/1986 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) at Mehsana in the Motor Accident Claim Application No.150 of 1983 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has partly allowed the application and awarded the amount of compensation of Rs.59,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application till the date of realization with proportionate costs. 2. The cross objection is filed by the respondents-claimants being Cross Objection No.53 of 2008. 3. The facts in brief leading rise to filing of the appeal are as under: 3.1) On 27/5/1982, while Shakirali was going on a Moped Scooter with Habibmiya as a pillion rider, an ST Bus belong to the appellant Corporation dashed the scooter near Kalol. As a result of the said accident, both were seriously injured. Shakirali died on the spot and Habibmiya also died subsequently. Therefore, the parents of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 3.2) On completion of the pleadings, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.59,000/- in MACP Case FA/1212/1986 3/4 JUDGMENT No.150 of 1983 as stated above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The main contention raised by the appellant is with regard to the aspect of negligence and quantum of compensation. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, more particularly panchnama of the place of incident, has held in para-13 that the accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ST Bus. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given and findings arrived at by the Tribunal while holding the driver of the ST Bus negligent for the accident in question. No other contention is raised by the learned advocate for the appellant. 5. In the case on hand, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.300/- and awarded an amount of compensation of Rs.54,000/- under the head of loss of future income by applying a multiplier of 15 to the parents. Considering the age of the deceased at the time of accident and parents are claimants, I am of the opinion that the multiplier of 12 years would be just and proper. Hence, the claimants would be entitled for Rs.43,200/- under the head of future lose of income by assessing the monthly income at Rs.300/-. The claimants shall also be entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate. In all, the claimants will be entitled for FA/1212/1986 4/4 JUDGMENT Rs.48,200/-. 6. In that view of the matter, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled for an amount of Rs.48,200/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application till the date of realisation. It is clarified that if the amount is not withdrawn by the claimants so far, the same will be refunded to the appellant Corporation and if the same is already withdrawn, then it will be open for the appellant Corporation to recover the same. 7. With the above modification, appeal is partly allowed. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 8. As the appeal disposed of, Cross Objection No.53 of 2008 does not survive. Hence, Cross Objection No.53 of 2008 also stands disposed of. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) (ila)