1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 31.12.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1710 of 1993 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1, 86,000/ to the claimants at the rate of 9% from the date of application till its realization.
2.0 The facts emerging from the record are that Hitesh Naranbhai Patel started to move to enter in the bus along with other passengers on Maneja Bus stop near Nyanmandir. At that point of time, the driver of the bus negligently and without taking care suddenly started the bus. As a result thereof, Hitesh was thrown away on the road and he sustained serious injuries. The parent of the deceased filed the aforesaid claim petition before the learned Tribunal wherein the aforesaid award came to be passed which is challenged in the present appeal.
3.0 She further submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have attributed 50% negligence to the driver of the bus and 50% to the deceased.
4.0 She further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in assessing the income of Rs. 5500/ per month and the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the income at Rs. 1500/ per month and that the multiplier of 15 is on higher side.
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 on record.
7.0 As far as negligence is concerned, it is not proved by the appellant by adducing any evidence showing that the deceased was negligent or careless to any extent. Further, there is no crossexamination of the claimants by the appellant. There is no independent evidence adduced by the appellant and even no crossexamination is made. Hence, in absence of any evidence, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the bus was negligent.
8.0 As far as income is concerned, if Rs. 1500/ is taken as income of the deceased, and by doubling and taking average it would come to Rs. 2250/. Rs. 2250/ be divided by 2 to get the mean which comes to amount of Rs. 1125/ per month and Rs. 13500/ per year. The age of the mother was 33 years. Therefore, by applying multiplier of 15, it would come to Rs. 2,02,500/. Even by applying the aforesaid formula, the amount of compensation would be higher. Hence, the view taken by the learned Tribunal is just and proper.
9.0 In the premises aforesaid, the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed accordingly.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*