This appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of the owner of the vehicle and is directed against the award dated January 21, 1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahals at Godhra in MAC Petition No.718 of 1989 thereby disposing of the application by awarding a sum of Rs.1,55,200/- as compensation for the death of the victim arising out of the accident where the bus owned by the appellant was involved. Being dissatisfied, the owner of the vehicle, namely, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has come up with the present appeal.
There is no dispute that on September 16, 1989 at about 12.30 p.m. while the driver of the concerned bus was placing the bus at the depot on the platform while using reverse gear, the bus had run over the victim and consequently she died. The application was filed by her husband and two children. According to the claimants, the victim had business of selling milk by keeping buffaloes and she used to earn Rs.1000/- a month. The amount claimed was Rs.1,70,000/-
The application was contested by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and in the application, the fact that the victim died of the accident was not denied. It was, however, contended that due to negligence on the part of the victim, the accident occurred and thus the appellant would not be held responsible for the death. According to the appellant, while the bus was running on reverse gear some of the passengers tried to board into the bus and in that process the victim had fallen from the bus and was run over.
The Tribunal below on consideration of the materials on record came to the conclusion that it was due to the negligence of the driver of the bus that the accident occurred and in such circumstances, it was a fit case for grant of compensation. The compensation was assessed in the following way:-
Ms Rinu Singh , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant strenuously contended before me that while arriving at the conclusion that the driver of the vehicle was solely responsible for the death, the Tribunal below totally misread the evidence on record. According to Ms Singh, it was due to contributory negligence on the part of the victim that the accident occurred inasmuch as it has been established from evidence on record that while boarding running bus in the reverse gear the victim had fallen from the bus and in the process went under the wheel. She, therefore, submits that her client should not be held liable for payment of the compensation.
Ms Singh further contends that even the assessment of amount of compensation on the basis of income of the victim to be Rs.1000/- a month was erroneous as no material was placed showing that the victim actually used to earn Rs.1000/- a month from the alleged business of selling milk. She, therefore, prays for setting aside the award.
Ms Nayana Panchal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants has, on the other hand, supported the award impugned and has contended that it was the sole duty of the driver of the vehicle to see that nobody came on the rear side of the bus while the bus was running in the reverse gear. She further contends that even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that sufficient materials were not there in support of the allegation that the victim had actual income of Rs.1000/- a month from the business of selling milk, having regard to the service she rendered towards her family as a housewife, it was sufficient to come to the conclusion that the amount of compensation awarded was rather on the lower side. She, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, I find that there is no dispute that the victim died of the accident where the bus was involved. I find substance in the contention of Ms Panchal that while driving any vehicle in public place on the reverse gear an additional duty is cast upon the driver to see that nobody came from the rear side. Since it was a bus of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation it was the duty of the conductor of the bus to caution the passengers from entering into the bus while the bus was on the reverse gear. In absence of any evidence adduced by the conductor of the vehicle that any such precaution was taken, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of negligence arrived at by the Tribunal below.
Even if I assume for the sake of argument that there was some negligence on the part of the victim, such negligence cannot be more than 20% because of the fact that in the present case the involved vehicle was a State transport vehicle and that the same was inside the depot and was running in a reverse gear.
However, even if I assume negligence of 20% on the part of the victim, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa and others vs. State of Bihar and others reported in AIR 2001 SC 3218, I am of the view that even on modest estimation Rs.3000/- per month should be taken to be the money value of the services rendered by a housewife between the age group of 34-59 years of age and if we treat the money value of the services rendered by the victim towards her family to be Rs.3000/- a month and deduct 20% on account of her contributory negligence, the amount of compensation should be much higher. However, the claimants having not preferred any cross objection or counter appeal, I do not find any scope to consider the case of enhancing the amount of compensation.
On consideration of the entire materials on record, I, therefore, find that in the present case even if I accept the contention of Ms Singh that there was contributory negligence to some extent on the part of the victim, having regard to the fact that she was aged 45 years and had a family of husband and two children, her contribution towards her family cannot be overlooked and in such circumstances, amount of Rs.1,15,200/- by way of dependency benefit loss cannot be said to be unreasonable. Similarly, the award of Rs.20,000/- for loss of expectation of life, Rs.10,000/- for consortium and Rs.5,000/- for mental pain, shock and suffering cannot be said to be unreasonable. In other words, the total sum of Rs.1,55,200/- for death of the victim in the facts of the present case cannot be said to be unjustified necessitating interference in this appeal.
The appeal is thus dismissed. I uphold the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal although I do not approve of the reasons assigned by the Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs.
(BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, ACTING CJ.) zgs/-