1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant- Transport Manager, Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service against the judgment and order dated 22.9.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P. No.205 of 1996, ordering the respondent herein to recover a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the present appellant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the petition till realization with proportionate costs.
2. Facts, in nutshell, are as under:-
2.1. On 27.10.1995, at about 3.45 p.m., the respondent was travelling from Jamalpur to Sarangpur in AMTC Bus route No.150 bearing Registration No.GRY 8545, owned by the appellant No.2 herein. When the respondent was getting down, the driver of the bus moved the bus with a great jerk in rash and negligent manner with full speed and because of the said act, the respondent was thrown away from the bus and rear wheel of the bus ran over the left hand as well as left leg of the respondent and he sustained fracture of tibia and fibula of left leg and other bodily injuries. Respondent was immediately shifted to V.S. Hospital.
2.2. The respondent, accordingly filed M.A.C.P. No.205 of 1995 before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under different heads. The Claims Tribunal allowed the said claim petition by judgment and order dated 22.9.2000 and ordered the respondent herein to recover a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the present appellant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the petition till realization with proportionate costs.
3. The appellant- Transport Manager, Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, therefore, preferred the present First Appeal before this Court, on the ground that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on higher side.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant stated that the Claims Tribunal has misinterpreted itself on the question of awarding the compensation. He stated that the Claims Tribunal has observed in para 12 of the judgment as under:-
“12. The opposite side i.e. opponent No.2 has examined the PSI who was constable in Kalupur Police Station, on the day of the accident i.e. 27.10.95. This police officer has stated that at the time of the accident, he was I.O. in Kalupur Police Station. He says further that he had received the wardhi from V.S. Hospital, and therefore, he had gone to the hospital and recorded the complaint from Yusufkhan Nizamkhan i.e. applicant vide Exh.33. He says that the complainant had put up his thumb impression on the said complaint and he himself had signed before him. He has also stated that it was not true that if the complainant says that at the time of recording Exh.33, he was unconscious and he himself, i.e. witness has recorded the complaint according to him, and he had taken the thumb impression of the complainant on the said complaint Exh.33. It is pertinent to note that in his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not bring the records of the case for which he had explained that there are some records, which should be destroyed after 3 or 5 years, as the case be. He has stated that accordingly, he did not bring the record, as it is not traceable. Thus, is is crystal clear that the original records of the police paper in question have been destroyed, and therefore, the police officer did not bring the record at the time of recording his deposition. But, in his cross-examination, in absence of such record, the learned advocate for the applicant had shown the certified copy of the statements of the witnesses those very recorded by this Police Officer, and the Police Officer has stated that the witness Mahmadbhai Ahemadbhai Shaikh, had stated before him that he was waiting at the bus stop Sarangpur Route No.36, at the time of the accident, the Bus route No.150 had come and the bus had taken turn near Dargah at the gate of the bus stand of Sarangpur and, at that time, the bus was stopped and 4 to 5 passengers had got down and while one passenger was getting down, the bus was started and the said passenger fell down and the wheel of the rear portion of the bus was run over the left hand and left leg of that passenger i.e. applicant.”
5. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on higher side and the multiplier is also on the higher side. He further stated that disability assessed is also on the higher side.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the judgment and order passed by the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal has framed the following issues at Exh.32 for determination:
(1) Whether the applicant proves that he sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.GRY-8545 by its driver ?
(2) Whether the opponents prove that the applicant is also liable for contributory negligence ? If yes, to what extent?
(3) To what amount of compensation the applicant is entitled to and from whom ?
(4) What order and award ?
Findings of the Claims Tribunal to the above issues are as follows:
(1) In the affirmative
(2) In the negative
(3) As per order
(4) As per final order below.
7. The income of the injured at the relevant point of time was Rs.2,500/- per month. The Tribunal has considered disability at 54% and awarded Rs.1,350/- per month and Rs.16,200/- per year. Looking to the age of 31 years of the claimant, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 14 and awarded Rs.2,26,800/- under the head of future economic loss.
8. After going through the judgment and order of the Claims Tribunal, I find that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the respondent herein and the income assessed by the Claims Tribunal is proper. The Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the judgment and order impugned in this appeal and accordingly, no interference is called for. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
[ K. S. JHAVERI, J. ] vijay