Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/690/1990 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 690 of 1990
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================================
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.
CORPORATION - Appellant(s)
Versus
PUKHRAJJI
HIRALAL SONI,BARMERA & 7 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HARDIK C RAWAL for
Appellant(s) : 1,MR SN SHELAT for Appellant(s) : 1,
MR SV RAJU for
Defendant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR ANAND L SHARMA for Defendant(s) : 3,
None
for Defendant(s) : 4 - 5.
(MS KUSUM M SHAH) for Defendant(s) : 6 -
7.
MR SHALIN N MEHTA for Defendant(s) :
8,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 21/01/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
Present
First Appeal, under sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been
preferred by the appellant – original opponent No.2 –
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation challenging the Judgement
and Award dtd.31/7/1989 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxi.), Palanpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 74
of 1984, by which the learned tribunal has partly allowed the said
claim petition awarding a total sum of Rs.1,45,750 towards
compensation to the claimants and holding the driver of the ST Bus
negligent to the extent of 40% and driver of the Jeep Car negligent
to the extent of 60%.
That
in a vehicular accident between ST Bus and Jeep Car which took
place on 12/2/1984, one Shankarlal Soni died and therefore, the
original claimants being his heirs preferred Motor Accident Claim
Petition No. 74 of 1984 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
at Palanpur claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000. That on
appreciation of evidence the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held the
driver of the ST Bus negligent to the extent of 40% and driver of
the Jeep Car negligent to the extent of 60% and on appreciation of
evidence, considering the income of the deceased at the relevant
time at the rate of Rs.900 per month and deducting 1/3rd
amount for his personal expenditure, awarded future economic loss
considering net loss of Rs.600 and applying multiplier of 20, the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of
Rs.1,45,750. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
Judgement and Award, the appellant – original opponent No.3 –
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has preferred th present
First Appeal.
Ms.Archana
Patel, learned advocate appearing
on behalf of the appellant – GSRTC has submitted that
the appellant is not questioning the impugned Judgement and Award
passed by the learned Tribunal so far as negligence is concerned. It
is submitted that, however, the appellant is challenging the
impugned Judgement and Award passed by the learned tribunal so far
as quantum is concerned. It is submitted that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the learned tribunal has erred in
awarding future economic loss applying multiplier of 20. It is
submitted that even considering the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others
Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009
ACJ 1298, at the most multiplier of 18 could have been applied by
the learned tribunal. Therefore, it is requested to allow the appeal
to the aforesaid extent.
Present
appeal is opposed by Mr.Anand L. Sharma, learned
advocate appearing on behalf of the surviving claimants as it
is reported that except widow – respondent No.3 herein –
Bhagwatiben Shankarlal Soni all other claimants have expired. It is
submitted that even if it is considered that the learned Tribunal
ought not to have awarded future economic loss applying multiplier
of 20 in that case also considering the fact that the learned
tribunal has not awarded any amount under the heads of Loss of
Estate and Consortium, the impugned Judgement and Award passed by
the learned tribunal is not required to be interfered with.
Heard
the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties
at length.
It
is true that the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding
future economic loss applying multiplier of 20, however, it is to
be noted that it was a fatal case and therefore, the claimants were
entitled to Rs.15,000 under the head of Loss of Estate and and
Rs.15,000 under the head of Consortium, which have not been awarded
by the learned tribunal. It is also required to be noted that the
impugned judgement and award has been challenged only by the
appellant herein and the owner and Insurance Company of the Jeep
Car, who is held to be negligent to the extent of 60% have not
preferred First Appeal challenging the Judgement and Award in
question. Considering the aforesaid aspects and overall facts of the
case when, though the claimants are entitled to Rs.30,000 under the
heads of Loss of Estate and Consortium, the same have not been
awarded by the learned tribunal, the impugned Judgement and Award
passed by the learned tribunal is not interfered with. If the excess
amount awarded by the learned tribunal towards future economic loss
applying multiplier of more than 18 is adjusted against the amount
to be paid under the heads of Loss of Estate and Consortium, the
amount of compensation would come to the same figure and therefore,
this court does not interfere with the impugned Judgement and Award
passed by the learned tribunal.
In
view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present First
Appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed. No costs.
[M.R.
SHAH, J.]
rafik
Top