FA/466/2005 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 466 of 2005 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1890 of 2005 In FIRST APPEAL No. 466 of 2005 With CROSS OBJECTION No. 16 of 2008 In FIRST APPEAL No. 466 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================= = 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 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 ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= = GSRTC Versus RANJANBEN CHANDRAKANTBHAI MEHTA (WIFE) AND OTHERS ========================================= =Appearance : MRS VASAVDATTA BHATT for the Appellant MR SANDIP C SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2,1.2.3 RULE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1.2.4 ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and FA/466/2005 2/4 JUDGMENT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 13/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) 1. The present appeal is filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation being aggrieved by the claim granted to the claimants in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.108 of 1993. Cross Objection has also been filed by the claimants. 2. The accident had taken place in the background where a truck was standing on Highway. The truck was standing because of its tyre was punctured. At that time when the repair work of the truck was going on, a bus belonging to the appellant GSRTC came from behind. It first collided with the truck and killed its cleaner and then it strode the fiat car in which the deceased claimant was sitting. The car was coming from opposite direction. 3. From the facts obtaining on record, it is clear that the truck was standing and was on the same side from where the bus was coming. The car was coming from front. Ordinary, a vehicle, whose side is occupied is required to give way to the vehicle coming from the opposite side. In this case, it has been found that all the three vehicles were negligent. Their proportion has been fixed as truck 10%, bus 60% and car 30% 4. The Tribunal has noticed that driver of the bus was required to be vigilant as a car was coming from front with FA/466/2005 3/4 JUDGMENT its lights on. He has first struck the truck which was on its side. Thus, overlooked the situation obtaining on road. The findings as are available do not appear to be of a value which can be disturbed. The evidence of the parties have been fully discussed. We do not consider it proper to disturb that part of the judgment. 5. Then comes the question of quantum of compensation. The claimant was a businessman. From Income-tax returns, his income comes out to be about 1.5 lacs. Thus, dependency of claimants could be of Rs. 1 lac. The Tribunal had taken a figure of rupees five thousand per month, which is on lower side. A multiplier of 15 has been used. The age of deceased was of 44 years. According to the judicial norm, it is on the higher side. But, if it is considered that the dependency was calculated as Rs. one lac, then a shorter multiplier would have given the same kind of figure. Thus, the award does not call for any interference of this Court. These findings take care of the appeal of the GSRTC. 6. As regards the case of the claimants in cross-objection is concerned, the findings being approved on the count of negligence, no interference is called for, more particularly when Insurance Company has not been impleaded as party and the claim was only filed against the GSRTC. 7. In the result, the appeal and the cross objections are held merit-less and hence dismissed. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed. 8. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Court below FA/466/2005 4/4 JUDGMENT forthwith. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1890 OF 2005: In view of the judgment and order passed in First Appeal No.466 of 2005, the present Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of accordingly. (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.) (S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) omkar