1. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 16.12.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 27 of 1994 so far as the Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,40,241/- as compensation with interest.
3. It is the case of the claimant that on 17.03.1994, while the claimant alighted from the AMTS bus in question, the original opponent no. 1 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner thereby hitting him as a result of which he sustained injuries. The claimant therefore filed claim petition to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Mr. Adil Mirza, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the entire facts of the case and evidence on record and thereby erred in awarding higher amount under various heads. He submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income on higher side and the same is required to be reduced.
5. As a result of hearing and perusal of records, this court is of the view that considering the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant sustained injuries as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the original opponent no. 1 solely. The Tribunal has considered the panchnama of scene of offence coupled with other evidence to come to the conclusion that the negligence was solely on the bus driver.
The Tribunal has observed that the road was wide enough and when the claimant was a pedestrian, it was the moral duty of the driver of the bus to take sufficient care. The bus driver was not examined before the Tribunal. Nothing is pointed out before this Court to take a contrary view.
5.1 The Tribunal has finally quantified the amount of compensation at Rs. 5,40,241/- after taking into account the income at Rs. 2500/- per month and the prospective income at Rs. 3225/- which ought to have been Rs. 3750/-. Even the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on lower side. However, as no cross appeal has been filed by the claimant, no orders can be passed in this regard. This court therefore does not see any reason for causing interference.
6. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//