1. The appellant-Corporation has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and award dated 29.03.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P. No.234/1996 whereby, the claim petition was allowed in part and the respondents, original claimants, were awarded total compensation of Rs.3,86,100/- along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of application till its realization.
2. The aforesaid claim petition was preferred in connection with the vehicular accident which took place on 02.12.1995 involving an AMTS bus bearing registration No. GTE 5095. In the said accident, the deceased sustained severe bodily injuries and died. Therefore, the original claimants filed claim petition claiming total compensation of Rs.7.00 Lacs.
3. The appellant-Corporation has challenged the impugned award mainly on the grounds that the Tribunal has erred in holding contributory negligence of the driver of the AMTS bus at 90%. He has further contended that the compensation awarded under the different heads are on higher side. It is also submitted that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and deserves to be reduced.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. After considering the evidence on record in the form of panchnama of the scene of accident at Exhibit-23 and the FIR at Exhibit-22, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred on account of the 90% negligence of the AMTS bus driver and 10% negligence of the deceased. In my opinion, while recording such finding, the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and has rightly held the AMTS bus driver 90% negligent for the accident. Having gone through the impugned award, I find that the Tribunal was completely justified in awarding the compensation under all the heads except, the head of dependency. The Tribunal was justified in assessing monthly dependency at Rs.2,300/-, but, the Tribunal has erred in adopting the multiplier of 15. The Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 16, considering the ratio laid down by Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009(6) SCC 121. But as the cross-objection is not filed in this appeal, no enhancement can be made. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal and hence, I find no reasons to entertain the present appeal.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
..mitesh..
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.]