FA/890/1989 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 890 of 1989 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 Versus MARIAMBEN WD/O ISMAIL ALIAS BADUKASAM AND OTHERS ====================================== Appearance : MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Appellant. MR SP DAVE for Respondent No.1. NOTICE SERVED for Respondent Nos.2 - 8. ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 29/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appeal under Section 110 D of the erstwhile Motor Vehicles Act 1939 challenges common award dated 16th November 1988 FA/890/1989 2/3 JUDGMENT of MACT (Main), Junagadh, inter alia, in MACP No.412 of 1983 whereunder the claimants were awarded total Rs.1,15,000/- by way of compensation for death of their bread winner in the accident that happened on 18-9-1983. The facts, about which there is no dispute, are that the deceased victim of the accident was driving the carrier rickshaw which collided with the bus of the appellant on Junagadh – Rajkot highway at around 8:45 a.m. The appeal was sought to be argued for the purpose of reducing the amount of compensation on the basis that the deceased could have been attributed some part of the negligence insofar as the rickshaw which he was driving was overloaded and the tribunal had only deducted Rs.200/- towards his personal expenses. Learned counsel had, however, fairly conceded at the outset that out of the common award, decision in respect of claim of other seven cases was unsuccessfully challenged and the appeals were dismissed long back. 2. It was submitted by learned counsel, Mr.Bhatt appearing for the respondent – claimant that in view of the fact that the bus of the appellant was admittedly overtaking another bus, it was on the wrong side of the road and no negligence could be attributed to the driver of the rickshaw, who was driving the vehicle on the proper side of the road and yet met with the fatal accident. It was also submitted that as against the income of Rs.800/- per month of the deceased, Rs.200/- have been deducted towards his personal expenditure. It was also on the higher side in view of the fact that the deceased was having the responsibility of a large family and he could not simply have afforded that much personal expenditure out of his meager income. 3. In view of above facts, the award of compensation being just and proper and the claimants having lost the support of the deceased, who was aged only 23 years at the time of death, this Court would not FA/890/1989 3/3 JUDGMENT be justified in reducing the amount of compensation. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (D.H.Waghela, J.) /malek