IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 2304 of 1995 With CROSS OBJECTION (STAMP NUMBER) No. 274 of 1995 In FIRST APPEAL No. 2304 of 1995 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA ========================================== ===========================
========================================== =============== GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus ASHOKBHAI NANANKCHAND CHANDDHA & ANR ========================================== =============== Appearance :
MS MAYA DESAI for MR MD PANDYA for Appellant. MR MTM HAKIM for respondent : 1, NOTICE SERVED for respondent: 2, ========================================== =============== CORAM : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA Date : 10/02/2012
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is at the instance of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, the owner of the offending bus, and is directed against an award dated 11th July 1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main], Surat in MACP No. 124 of 1988 thereby disposing of the claim- application by awarding a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of filing of application till realisation for the injuries suffered by the claimant in an accident involving the offending bus.
Being dissatisfied, the owner of the vehicle has come up with the present appeal.
The claimant has filed Cross-Objections being Cross Objections Stamp No. 274 of 1995. Therefore, this appeal and the Cross Objections are taken up together for hearing.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material on record, I find that there is no dispute that the victim was aged 45 years at the time of the accident, and while he was travelling on his scooter, there was a head-on-collision between the said scooter and the bus owned by the appellant, as a result, he was seriously injured. From the medical evidence adduced by the claimant, it appears that even after lapse of 7 years from the date of accident, the injured did not become normal. It further appears from the medical evidence that he was unable to even remember the names of persons, objects etc. and is also suffering from epilepsy and certain behavioural abnormalities due to head injuries suffered in the accident. The Doctor examined in the case was of the view that the applicant was required to spend a sum of Rs.100/- a month for medicines and treatment for the rest of his life, and such evidence was given in the year 1994.
On consideration of the materials on record, the Tribunal was of the view that the accident occurred due to negligent driving on the part of the offending bus and in such circumstances, a total sum of Rs.2,75,000/- should be awarded. The Tribunal awarded the aforesaid amount under the following heads:
Rs.2,10,000-00 Future loss of income Rs. 30,000-00 Money spent for medical treatment Rs. 25,000-00 Pain, Shock and suffering Rs. 10,000-00 Future medical treatment Rs.2,75,000-00 Total Ms. Desai, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has strenuously contended before me that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal below cannot be supported either on the basis of medical evidence or on the basis of alleged income of the victim. Ms.Desai points out that no documentary evidence was adduced in support of the income of the victim, and at the same time, it appears that the Mill in which the claimant used to work ultimately was closed. She further contends that the medical certificates issued by three Doctors at three different points of time did not suggest serious consequences of the injuries suffered by the claimant as found by the Tribunal below. Ms. Desai also submitted that the victim being 45 years of age at the time of the accident, there was no just reason for applying a multiplier of 14 in the facts of the present case. Lastly, Ms. Desai contended that the award of interest at the rate of 15% per annum was excessive, and she, therefore, prays for reduction of the amount awarded by the Tribunal.
Mr. Hakim, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimant and the cross-objector has, on the other hand, opposed the aforesaid contentions of Ms. Desai and contended that it has been well established on the evidence on record that for the accident, the victim had lost his job, and even 7 years after the accident, he was not in a position to remember the names of any person or objects. By referring to the medical evidence adduced by the claimant, he contends that in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal below rightly concluded that the victim had almost 100% disability due to the accident. Mr. Hakim, therefore, prays for enhancement of the amount.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, I find that the Tribunal below, in the facts of the present case, has rightly disbelieved the claim of the victim that he was earning Rs.5000/- a month at that point of time. On an overall consideration of the evidence of record, in my view, the findings of the Tribunal below that having regard to the fact that the victim was owner of a scooter, and after maintaining the scooter, he was also maintaining himself and his family, the monthly income of Rs.1250/-, is quite reasonable. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal below on this score.
It has been well-established from evidence on record that the victim was aged 45 years at the time of the accident; he lost his job due to such accident, and, even 7 years thereafter, he was not in a position to do any job or work. It further appears from the records that the Doctor opined that he was required to spend further amount for medical treatment throughout his life. The owner of the bus has not examined any expert for the purpose of contradicting the medical evidence adduced by the claimant.
In such circumstances, I find no reason to disbelieve the medical evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant.
It is established from evidence on record that the accident has deprived the victim of doing any job or earning any amount. The award of Rs.2,10,000/- for future loss of income, therefore, cannot be said to be unreasonable. Similarly, the award of Rs.30,000/- for the amount spent for medical treatment and Rs.25,000/- towards pain,shock and suffering are quite reasonable. The Tribunal below has also awarded Rs.10,000/- for future medical treatment having regard to the fact that he was required to continue medical treatment throughout his life without having any further source of income.
On an overall consideration of the materials on record, I find that the award of Rs.2,75,000/- is just amount of compensation in the facts of the present case.
I, however, find substance in the contention of Ms.Desai that there was no justification in awarding interest at 15% per annum. Having regard to the rate of interest prevailing in nationalized banks, in my view, award of interest at the rate of 12% per annum would be sufficient. I accordingly modify the award impugned by only reducing the rate of interest from 15% per annum to 12% per annum. The other parts of the award are not interfered in any way.
It appears from the materials on record that the appellant had deposited the entire amount before the Tribunal below. In such circumstances, the Tribunal is directed to re-calculate the amount of interest on the awarded sum and refund the excess amount of interest as per this order to the appellant and release the balance amount in favour of the claimant, if not already released, on proper verification, within two months from today. However, if the entire amount has already been released, in such event, the claimant will refund the additional 3% interest that he has received within two months from today.
The First Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent indicated. The Cross-Objection is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.
Registry is directed to return the Record and Proceedings to the Tribunal forthwith.
mathew [BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, ACTING C.J.]