1.0 The above First Appeal No. 2913 of 2001, at the instance of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation is directed against the judgement and award dated 28th February 2001 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Main), Panchmahals, Godhra in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 335 of 1995 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,12,308/ along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. First Appeal No.3868 of 2001 is at the instance of the original claimants for enhancement of the compensation.
2.0 Kanchanbhai Desaibhai Parmar was serving as a Conductor in S.T.Bus On 20th February 1995 the S.T. Bus wherein Mr. Kanchanbhai was on duty, was passing through Sankheda town and when it reached near Ambaji Mata Temple, there being a narrow road, the said Kanchanbhai sustained serious injuries on head as a result of which he died. The legal heirs therefore filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation in the sum of Rs.10 lacs wherein the aforesaid award came to be passed.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellantST Corporation submitted that looking to the evidences viz. FIR, Panchnama, deposition, etc. it is clear that the driver was not responsible for the accident and at least there was contributory negligence of the conductor also.
4.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant also contended that amount awarded under future loss of income is on higher side and event the amount of Rs.20000/ awarded towards expectation of life is also on higher side.
5.0 On the contrary, learned Advocate for the original claimants submitted that the deceased was getting Rs.2235/ per month and he ought to have earned Rs.4000/ to 5000/ per month and future economical loss should have been calculated accordingly. Further, it is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have deduced 1/5th amount while calculating the future economical loss. He further submitted that the multiplier should have been 18.
6.0 As a result of hearing and perusal of the record it is evident from the record that at the relevant time the S.T. Bus was passing through a narrow road. As per the evidence, since the road was narrow, when another vehicle came from the opposite side, the driver had to take the vehicle reverse so as to give way to the other vehicle. At that time the conductor took his head out of the window in order to give signal to the driver. Naturally the conductor did not expect any such eventuality and he was doing his duty. Therefore the Tribunal has rightly held that there was no negligence on the part of the Conductor. Learned Advocate for the appellant is not in a position to assail the said finding of the Tribunal.
7.0 So far as quantum is concerned, there is no evidence to take the income of more than Rs. 3000/ per month. Out of this amount, 1/4th is required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses which would come to Rs. 750/. Therefore the yearly loss would come to Rs.27000/ (Rs.2250 x 12). Keeping the mind the age of 32 years, 16 multiplier would apply. Therefore, the future loss of income would come to 432000/. Further, Rs. 10000/ towards loss to the estate, Rs. 10000/ towards loss of consortium and Rs. 5000/ towards funeral expenses are awarded. Therefore, total compensation would come to Rs. 4,57,000/. After considering the negligence part, the compensation would come to Rs. 319900/. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 312308/ as total compensation. Hence, the claimant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 7592/( Rs. 319900/ Rs. 312308/) along with interest at the rate of 7.5%.
8.0 Accordingly it is held that the claimant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.7592/ along with interest at the rate of 7.5%. The judgement and award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Consequently First Appeal No.3868/2001 is partly allowed and First Appeal No;.2913/2001 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*