Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/2483/2010 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 2483 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
G
S R T C & 1 - Appellant(s)
Versus
KOKILABEN
WD/O RATILAL FULABHAI GOHIL & 4 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MRS
VASAVDATTA BHATT for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR PARESH M DARJI for Defendant(s) : 1 -
2.
None for Defendant(s) : 3, 3.2.1,3.2.2 -
5.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 06/09/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
The
present appeal arises against the judgement and the order dated
07.01.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal in MACP No.2852/01,
whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded the amount of Rs.7,78,536/-
swith interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a.
The
short facts of the case appears to be that the deceased Ratilal
Gohil while going as a pillion rider in the scooter bearing
No.GBF-484 sustained injuries on 15.10.2001 since one S.T.Bus
bearing No.GJ-18-V-7999 dashed with the scooter and the deceased was
thrown away from the scooter and sustained injury and thereafter, he
succumbed to the injuries. The claim petition was filed being MACP
No.2852/01 by the dependent members of the family of the deceased
for compensation of Rs.15 Lakhs. The Tribunal ultimately, passed
the above referred judgement and order. It is under these
circumstances, the present appeal before this Court.
We
have heard Ms.Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.Darji appearing for the original claimants.
The
first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is
that there is no contributory negligence attributed by the Tribunal
to the driver of the vehicle and therefore, the error, which may be
interfered by this Court.
The
examination of the said contention with the discussion of the
evidence by the Tribunal is at para 8 of the judgement. It appears
from the record that the driver of the scooter Bharatbhai Ishwarbhai
Gohil has been examined at Exh.36 and as per his evidence, he was
driving the scooter on the left side of the road, but the ST bus has
dashed with the scooter and the accident has happened. Further, the
independent witness Subhashbhai, Ex.71, was also examined who was
having pan galla near to the place of incident. As per his evidence
on record, the driver of the ST Bus by driving the bus on the wrong
side, has dashed with the scooter. There is no evidence whatsoever
led by the appellant ST Corporation nor the driver of the ST bus has
been examined. The damage to the vehicle, as per the panchnama is on
the side of the bus and also on the side of the scooter. Under
these circumstances, if the Tribunal has found that the driver of
the ST bus is fully responsible for the accident and no
contributory negligence has been attributed to the driver of the
scooter, such an approach on the part of the tribunal cannot be said
as erroneous. Hence, the contention cannot be accepted.
The
learned counsel next contended that on the aspect of quantum, the
Tribunal has committed error. She submitted that for the loss of
estate, the Tribunal has wrongly awarded the amount of Rs.25,000/-
and therefore, this Court may interfere.
The
examination of the said contention shows that the deceased was
employed with the Gujarat Water Supply Corporation and his salary
slip was produced. His net income of Rs.5070/- per month was
considered and thereafter, his income at the time of requirement per
month was considered and the average income was found out by the
Tribunal at Rs.7,389/-. So far as the other work is concerned, only
Rs.250/- per month for supplying milk to the society is taken into
consideration. Thereafter, the monthly income is assessed at
Rs.7640/- per month out of which 1/3rd is deducted
towards personal expenses and for the purpose of compensation 2/3rd
of the amount has been considered. Further, keeping in view the age
of the deceased of 39 years, multiplier applied is of 12. On the
aspects of loss of estate, the amount of Rs.25,000/- could not be
said to be perverse exercise of the power. Hence, the contention
that the contention that the Tribunal has committed error on the
aspects of quantum is without substance.
In
view of the above, the appeal is meritless. Hence, dismissed.
(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)
(H.B.
ANTANI, J.)
*bjoy
Top