By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant – Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has challenged the judgment and award dated 28th January 2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in MAC Petition No.1362 of 1998 whereby the claim petition has been allowed partly. 2 The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are to the effect that on the date of the incident i.e. on 8th December 1996 the deceased along with others was going to have darshan to Shahibaug Swaminarayan Temple and while they were crossing the road near Visat Petrol Pump, at that time, the offending vehicle viz. ST Bus came from Gandhinagar in an excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the deceased due to which deceased died.
3 The appellants being the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased filed aforesaid MAC Petition No.1362 of 1998 claiming compensation of Rs.1 lakh from the respondents herein.
4 The Tribunal has considered the income of Rs.1500 per month and after deducting 1/3rd income therefrom, assessed Rs.1000 per month as future economic loss. Considering the age of the deceased, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 5 and awarded Rs.60,000 towards future economic loss. Over and above, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000 under the head of conventional amount. Thus, in all Rs.80,000 was awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
5 Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that ST bus is not involved in the accident in question. She further submitted that evidence of Mr AK Trivedi, Assistant Traffic Inspector of the appellant Corporation has not been considered by the Tribunal. She further submitted that looking to the age of deceased, who is 70 years old at the time of accident, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded Rs.60,000 under the head of future economic loss. She further contended that in the FIR the registration number of the ST Bus was not given and therefore the Tribunal ought not to have saddled the responsibility of paying compensation on the ST Corporation.
6 Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment and award of the Tribunal and submitted that it may not be possible for the claimants to lead strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner and the claimants are required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. In support of his contention, he relied upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kusum Lata & Ors. V Satbir & Ors., 2011 AIR SCW 1593.
7 Before proceeding with the matter on merits, this Court feels that loss of mother at any age is a great loss to the family and the loss cannot be quantified in terms of money. Amount of Rs.60,000 awarded by the Tribunal is a meagre amount to the Corporation.
8 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has considered the evidence properly and awarded the aforesaid amount. Therefore, no case is made out for interfering with the same. The appeal has no merits. The same is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd