1. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record.
2. The appellant-Corporation herein has challenged the award dated 06.12.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surat in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 857 of 1989 so far as the Tribunal held the original opponent no. 1 solely responsible for the accident in question and awarded compensation of Rs. 178896 to the original claimants at 12% interest.
3. It is the case of the claimant that on 26.07.1989 while the original claimant was riding his motorcycle, an S.T bus driven by the original opponent no. 1 rashly and negligently , knocked down the claimant while trying to overtake another bus. The claimant sustained injuries and therefore filed claim petition seeking compensation. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Ms. Roopal Patel, 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 holding that the accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the S.T bus driver. It is submitted that the original opponent no. 1 was driving his vehicle in a moderate speed and complying with the rules.
4.1 Ms. Patel also submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding excessive amounts under various heads. She submitted that the amounts awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering, medical expenses are excessive and the multiplier adopted is also on higher side and therefore the same may be reduced.
5. Ms. Stuti Jani, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Dharmesh Shah for the original claimant supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the original opponent no. 1 was solely responsible for the accident in question.
5.1 Ms. Jani submitted that even the compensation awarded in the present case is just and proper and therefore no interference is called for in the impugned award. She submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the increase in prospective income of the claimant while calculating loss of income. She also submitted that even if the multiplier is reduced, considering the increase in prospective income, no material difference shall appear. She submitted that the amounts under the other heads are just and proper.
6. 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 original claimant sustained injuries as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the original opponent no. 1. The Tribunal has in para 14 observed that the driver himself has admitted the accident. From the extent of damage as shown in the panchnama it is clear that one of the accident had taken place on account of the negligence on the part of the S.T. Bus driver and the FIR also corroborates the same. It is also required to be noted that the driver did not step into the witness box to explain as to under what circumstances the accident occurred. The Tribunal is justified in contributing the negligence solely on the S.T. Bus driver.
Nothing is pointed out before this Court to take a contrary view.
7. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal even if reduced to 16, the same shall not make much difference as the increase in prospective income is not considered by the Tribunal. This court is in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal and therefore do not see any reason for causing interference.
8. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//