FA/1606/1990 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1606 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant(s) Versus GALABHAI GOBARBHAI PARMAR - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HC RAVAL for Appellant(s) : 1, MR SUNIL K SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1, MR KD VASHI for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 09/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accident FA/1606/1990 2/4 JUDGMENT Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad (Rural) Mirzapur [for short, “the Tribunal”] in M.A.C. Case No. 307 of 1986 dated 7th September, 1989 whereby, the claim petition was partly allowed. 2.0 The facts in brief are as under; 2.1 On 27.10.1985 while the respondent – original claimant was travelling in a S. T. Bus bearing registration No. GRR - 8751 and belonging to the appellant – Corporation, it met with an accident with a Truck near Sanand on the Bahucharaji – Ahmedabad Road. As a result of the said accident, the respondent sustained severe bodily injuries. Subsequently, he took necessary treatment as an indoor patient in V.S. Hospital, Ahmedabad. 2.2 He, therefore, filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,05,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. On completion of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues and after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition by holding the appellant – Corporation liable to pay an amount of Rs.58,500/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the application till its realization. FA/1606/1990 3/4 JUDGMENT Being aggrieved by the impugned decree, the appellant has approached this Court by way of this Appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The only contention raised by the appellant – Corporation is that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding a higher multiplier of six years looking to the age of the respondent at the relevant point of time. As per the evidence on record, the age of the respondent as on 05.10.1988, i.e. when his deposition was recorded, was 65 years. The alleged incident took place on 27.10.1985, meaning thereby, that at the time of the alleged incident, the respondent was aged 62 years. It is a matter of record that the respondent was in service at the time when the alleged incident in question took place and the retirement age was 60 years. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the multiplier of six years awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this Appeal. No other contentions have been raised by FA/1606/1990 4/4 JUDGMENT the learned Advocate for the appellant. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*