IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1713 of 1995 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA ========================================== ===============
============================================== =============== GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus RAMUBEN GOVINDBHAI MINOR THRO'GUARDIAN KUVERBEN & ANR.
========================================== =============== Appearance :
MRS VASAVDATTA BHATT for Appellant. MR NIRZAR S DESAI for respondent No.1. NOTICE SERVED for respondent No: 2, ========================================== =============== CORAM : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA Date : 10/02/2012
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of the owner of the vehicle, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, and is directed against an award dated March 9, 1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main], Bhavnagar in M.A.C.P. No. 277 of 1987 thereby disposing of the claim-petition by awarding a sum of Rs.2,08,000/- with interest as compensation to the claimants, who happen to be the widow and three minor children of the victim.
Being dissatisfied, the owner of the vehicle has come up with the present appeal.
There is no dispute that the victim died on October 3, 1987 in the accident involving the offending vehicle owned by the present appellant, at the age of 31 years. The victim was a labour contractor and according to the claimants, he used to earn Rs.1500/- a month. The Tribunal below, on consideration of the materials on record, came to the conclusion that in the death arising out of the said accident, the offending bus was responsible to the extent of 80% whereas there was 20% contributory negligence on the part of the victim, though no specific findings were recorded in that behalf.
The Tribunal, in such circumstances, applied a multiplier of 20 on the monthly income of Rs.1500/- and after deducting 1/3rd for the victim's personal expenses, arrived at the figure of Rs.2,40,000/- under the head of dependency loss. In addition to such amount, further sum of Rs.20,000/- was awarded under the head of loss of estate and thus awarded an aggregate amount of Rs.2,60,000/- However, having regard to the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the victim had contributory negligence to the extent of 20%, the Tribunal deducted a sum of Rs.52,000/- from the total amount of Rs.2,60,000/- so awarded, and thus arrived at the final figure of Rs.2,08,000/- with interest at 15% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs, with a further rider that if the amount awarded was deposited within a period of three months, the interest will be reduced to 12% from the date of petition till actual payment.
Ms. Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant two-fold submissions in support of her contentions. First, Ms. Bhatt contended that the claimant having restricted their claim to Rs.2,10,000/-, the Tribunal below acted illegally in assessing the same at Rs.2,60,000/- towards compensation, and, therefore, deduction of 20% should be made from Rs.2,10,000/- and not from Rs.2,60,000/-.
Secondly, Ms. Bhatt contended that the Tribunal should not have applied multiplier of 20 in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of SMT. SARLA VERMA & ORS. vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR reported in 2010(1) GLR 17.
Mr. Desai, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimant-respondent has, however, opposed the aforesaid contentions of Ms. Bhatt and has contended that the Tribunal below did not exceed the total amount of compensation which was claimed and thus, the first contention of Ms. Bhatt is not tenable. Even on the second contention raised by Ms. Bhatt, Mr. Desai submits that if the Tribunal had really applied the principles laid down in the case of SARLA VERMA [supra], the question of future prospect has also to be taken into account and 50% of the monthly income ought to have been added. Mr. Desai, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material on record, I find substance in the contention of Mr. Desai that the claimant having restricted their claim to Rs.2,10,000/-, the decisive question is whether the Tribunal ultimately exceeded the said amount after making all necessary deductions. I have already pointed out that the final amount awarded by the Tribunal below was Rs.2,08,000/-, which was within the total claim.
Moreover, it is now well settled by the Supreme Court in several decisions that while dealing with claim-petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act, all that is required to be considered is whether the amount awarded is a 'just compensation', and if the Tribunal awards a a 'just compensation', which is even more than the one claimed by the claimant, in that event also there is no bar in granting additional amount, provided court fees are paid on that excess amount. Therefore, I find no substance in the first contention of Ms. Bhatt.
The second submission of Ms. Bhatt, in my opinion, is equally devoid of any substance in view of the fact that the victim was merely 31 years of age at the time of the accident. The negligence of 80% of the driver of the offending bus having been found, the application of multiplier of 20 cannot be said to be excessive, when the Court did not at all take into consideration the future prospect of the victim. If future prospect was taken into consideration and if I had applied the principles laid down in the case of SARLA VERMA [supra], the ultimate compensation would be more than the amount awarded by the Tribunal. However, having regard to the fact that no Corss- Objections or appeal for enhancement having been filed, there is no scope of enhancing the amount of compensation in this appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle.
Lastly, Ms. Bhatt tried to make submission on the question of grant of interest at the rate of 15% per annum. However, having regard to the fact that the Tribunal itself reduced it to 12% on condition of the appellant's depositing the amount within three months, I do not find any substance even in the last contention as the appellants got the opportunity to make payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
All the contentions raised by Ms. Bhatt having found to be without any substance, there is no merit in this appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.
The Tribunal is directed to release the amount lying in the Fixed Deposit, if any, to the claimant, on proper verification.
Registry is directed to return the Record & Proceedings to the Tribunal forthwith.
[BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, ACTING C.J.] mathew