FA/1282/1988 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1282 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA ====================================== 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 ? ====================================== GUJ STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN AND ANOTHER Versus VIMLADEVI SHIVDULARE SHUKLA AND OTHERS ====================================== Appearance : MR MD PANDYA for Appellants. MR HR LATHIGARA for Respondent Nos.1 - 3. NOTICE SERVED for Respondent Nos.4 - 6. ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 29/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal under the erstwhile provisions of Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is preferred from award dated 2nd September 1987 of MACT, Nadiad in MACP No.1116 of 1984, whereby the claimants were awarded Rs.1,26,000/- by way of compensation for FA/1282/1988 2/3 JUDGMENT loosing their bread-winner in the accident that happened on National High way No.8 between Nadiad and Kheda. Deceased victim of the accident was driving the ill-fated rickshaw when ST bus no. GRR 9521 owned by appellant no.1 dashed with the rickshaw, killing the driver and two other passengers. 2. Learned counsel, Ms.Maya Desai appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that some negligence was required to be attributed to the deceased driver of the rickshaw and that in calculating the amount of compensation the tribunal ought not to have adopted multiplier of 18 in view of the age of the deceased. 3. Learned counsel, Mr.Lathigara appearing for the original claimants defended the award and submitted that the appeal filed on behalf of the claimants was unfortunately dismissed for default and the application for its restoration was not heard because the papers of the appeal of the claimants were not traceable in the office of the High Court. 4. There is no dispute about the facts that at the time of accidental death of deceased driver of the rickshaw, his age was 33 years. However, the deposition of her widow was to the effect that he was earning Rs.1,500/- out of his service with a milk shop and by driving the rickshaw was not believed in absence of any documentary proof. It was quite clear from perusal of the evidence that the accident was attributable to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. As for the quantum of compensation, even as proper multiplier would have been less than 18, this Court would not be justified in reducing the amount of compensation in view of the fact that dependency factor was taken by the tribunal to be only Rs.500/- per month and Rs.6,000/- per FA/1282/1988 3/3 JUDGMENT annum. Since the compensation awarded by the tribunal is not found to be excessive as contended by the appellant, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (D.H.Waghela, J.) /malek