1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 27.01.2004 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Kachchh at Bhuj in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 244 of 1996 whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the aforesaid claim petition of the claimants by awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 288800/ at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization .
2.0 On 25.03.1996, Prempuri Gusai was going on road near Nava Naka at Mandvi. At that time, S.T. Bus bearing No. GJ1Z4803 came in excessive speed from the S.T. Depot and dashed with Prempuri. As a result of this Prempuri sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The legal heirs of the deceased therefore, filed the aforesaid claim petition wherein the learned Tribunal passed the aforesaid award which is challenged in the present petition.
3.0 Learned advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal has committed error in holding that the appellant was solely negligent in the accident. She submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have attributed the contributory negligence after the considering the evidence on record.
4.0 Learned advocate appearing for the appellant further submitted that the learned Tribunal committed error in awarding amount of compensation in sum of Rs. 288800/ and that learned Tribunal erred in believing the income of deceased as Rs. 2100 in absence of evidence.
5.0 Learned advocate for the respondent supported the judgement and award of the learned Tribunal and submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.
6.0 Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents of record.
7.0 As far as negligence is concerned, the Tribunal held in para 8 as under:
“8. As per evidence of Amrutben Prempuri Gusai it is duly established that the deceased Prempuri was going from her house on 25.03.1996 at about 10.30 a.m. At that time, a bus dashed with her husband, who sustained serious injuries on abodmen as well as other parts of the body. It is also proved that her husband died because of the injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident. The P.M. Exh. 31 states that the deceased Prempuri Gusai died due to serious injuries. It is further in evidence that a complaint was lodged before the concerned police station, the copy of which s produced at Exh. 28, wherein it is mentioned that an accident took place on 25.03.1996 at about 10.35 a.m. near Nava Naka, situated at Mandvi. It is also mentioned that the vehicle bearing registration No. GJ1Z4803 was also involved in this accident. Moreover, a copy of the panchnama, Exh. 29, supports the case of applicants. If we refer the panchnama Exh. 29 then it is duly established that the scene of occurrence a vehicle bearing No. GJ1Z4803 was lying. Moreover, the copy of chargesheet produced at Exh. 30 also supports the case of the applicants. It we refer Exh. 30 then it is disclosed that the opponent No.1 was driving the said bus on 25.03.1996. The chargesheet is filed against him under Section 279, 384A of IPC so perusing the deposition of petitioner No.1 Amrutben it is duly established that the opponent No. 1 was driving the said S.T. bus at the time,”
8.0 Further, nothing contrary come out from the crossexamination of the claimant. Looking to the complaint, Exh. 28, Panchnama Exh. 29 and chargesheet Exh. 3 it is duly established that at the time of accident, the appellant was negligent in driving the S.T. bus.
9.0 As far as income is concerned, the Tribunal in absence of any contrary evidence about the income of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed the income of Rs. 2500/ per month by referring the claim petition. Looking to the deposition of Amrutben the Tribunal has considered the income of Rs. 2100/. By deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses the loss of dependency would come to Rs.1400/ per month or Rs. 16800/ per year. By applying multiplier of 16, the future loss of income would come to Rs. 268800/. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 15000/ towards loss to the estate and loss of consortium. Rs. 5000/ was awarded for funeral expenses. Thus the total compensation would come to Rs. 288800/.
10.0 Learned Advocate for the petitioner is not in a position to assail any of the findings of the Tribunal. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal.
11.0 In the premises aforesaid the petition is devoid of any merits. The same is therefore dismissed.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*