Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/887/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COU..RT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 887 of 2011
=========================================================
AHMEDABAD
MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICE - Appellant(s)
Versus
USHABEN
MANILAL SOLANKI & 4 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HS MUNSHAW for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Defendant(s) : 1 -
5.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 29/04/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
The
present appeal arises against the judgment and award of the
Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has granted compensation of
Rs.18,30,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a.
The
broad facts of the case are that on 30.10.2001, deceased Manilal was
waiting for the bus on platform No.2 at Lal Darwaja bus-stand to
reach to home, and at that time, the bus bearing route No.34/5 was
to start from said platform. He was informed by the conductor that
he has instructed the passengers that the bus route No.34/5 was
parked in parking near the wall of City Survey Office and the
passengers were sitting in the said bus, therefore, Manilal was
going to board the said parked bus. During the said period, the
driver of the bus had driven the bus in excessive speed and
negligently from parking place near City Survey Office to platform
No.2 and hit the front portion of the bus to Manilal and the rear
left wheel of the bus ran-over the body of deceased Manilal. He
sustained serious injuries and then succumbed to the injuries on the
spot. Same has given rise to the claim petition being MACP No.1081
of 2001, demanding compensation of Rs.25 Lacs. The Tribunal at the
conclusion of the case, awarded the aforesaid amount. It is under
these circumstances, the present appeal is before this Court.
We
have gone through the judgment and reasons recorded by the Tribunal.
We have heard Mr.GB Baghel for Mr.Munshaw.
The
first contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the
prospective income have been erroneously assessed and in the
submission of the learned counsel, it should have been 25% of the
existing income whereas the Tribunal has assessed and added 50% in
the said income and, therefore, there is an error.
In
our view, the said submission deserves to be rejected outright.
Since the same is against the settled legal position by now. The
principles of calculating prospective income is by now well settled
and if the formula of treating the income by addition of 50% amount
in existing income would be applied and prospective income can be
assessed. The Tribunal has assessed in the same manner and,
therefore, there is no error as sought to be canvassed.
It
was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
person had sustained injury and he was not the deceased when this
claim petition was filed.
The
said submission is also without basis and on the contrary the
evidence including the evidence of the eye-witness is otherwise.
No
other submission is made. Hence, the appeal is meritless and,
therefore, dismissed.
(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)
(J.C.UPADHYAYA,
J.)
(binoy)
Top