1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Aux.] Rajkot in M.A.C. Case No.129/1991 dated 29.05.1993, whereby, the said case was partly allowed and the respondents, original claimants, were held to be entitled to receive an amount of Rs.1,37,060/ together with interest at the rate of 15% p.a from the date of application till its realization and proportionate costs from the appellant, original opponents.
2. The facts in brief are that on 15.03.1991 at about 0400 hours, while Manubhai was travelling in the S.T. Bus of route no. 35, at a particular place, the bus touched the electric pole, as result of which the head of Manubhai collided with the electric pole and he sustained severe bodily injuries and subsequently during treatment, he died. The legal heirs filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.3.00 Lacs. The said claim petition came to be partly allowed by way of the impugned award.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The appellant has mainly contended that the ratio of contributory negligence of 70 : 30 attributed by the Tribunal between the driver of the offending vehicle and the deceased is on the higher side. It appears from the record that since widening of work of the Kaisara Hind Bridge was going on, at that time, the deceased brought his body out of bus and therefore, his head collided with the electric pole. It is true that the S.T. Bus was not in excessive speed at the relevant time, and there is no iota of evidence on record to show that the bus scratched with electric pole, but it is the duty of the owner of the vehicle to see that the no passenger may be able to bring his body out of the bus. However, considering the fact that while the conductor was taking the bus ahead, at that time the deceased brought his half of the body out of the bus, as a result, his head collided with the electric pole, the ratio of contributory negligence of 70 : 30 attributed by the Tribunal is just and appropriate. Hence, I agree with the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence and find no reasons to disturb the same.
4. So far as the rate of interest of 15% awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, in my opinion, the same is on the higher side and also against the provisions of the Act and the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in such cases. Looking to the present scenario and keeping in mind the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it would be appropriate to grant interest 12% p.a. as against 15% granted by the Tribunal. Hence, the original claimants shall be entitled for interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of application till its realization along with proportionate costs from appellant original opponents.
5. Looking to the evidence on record, the aforesaid finding recorded by the Tribunal is just and proper and I do not find any illegality to have been committed by the Tribunal while recording the said finding. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings recorded in the impugned award and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this appeal. It is however, observed that the excess amount shall be refunded to the appellant original opponent.
6. No other contention has been raised on behalf of the appellants.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals stand dismissed. No costs.
[K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/