1. The appellant-Corporation has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and award dated 30.10.1992 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) in M.A.C.P. No.240/1987 whereby, the respondents, original claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs.
2. The aforesaid claim petition was preferred in connection with the vehicular accident which took place on 23.01.1987 involving an ST Bus bearing registration No. GRS 8554. In the said accident, the deceased sustained severe bodily injuries and died, therefore, the claimants filed the claim petition.
3. The appellant-Corporation has challenged the impugned award mainly on the grounds that the Tribunal has erred in deciding the issues regarding negligence and compensation awarded under different heads. It is also submitted that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and deserves to be reduced.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. After considering the evidence on record in the form of panchnama of the scene of accident, the FIR at Exhibit-
147 and oral evidence of eyewitness-Maheshkumar Purshotambhai at Exh.99, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred on account of sole negligence of the ST bus driver. In my opinion, while recording such finding, the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and has rightly held the ST bus driver solely negligent for the accident. Having gone through the impugned award, I find that the Tribunal was completely justified in awarding the compensation under all the heads except, the head of dependency. The Tribunal was justified in assessing monthly dependency at Rs.2,400/-, but, the Tribunal has erred in adopting multiplier of 6. The Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier of 9, considering the ratio laid down by Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009(6) SCC 121. But as the cross-objection is not filed in this appeal, no enhancement can be made. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal and hence, I find no reasons to entertain the present appeal.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
..mitesh..
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.]