Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service vs Manubhai Punjalal Shah

@

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, C.J.—This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of the Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service (A.M.T.S.), the owner of the offending bus and is directed against the award dated 20th September, 2005 passed by the M.A.C. Tribunal (Auxi.), Court No. 8, Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P. No. 307 of 2000 thereby disposing of the proceeding under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by awarding a sum of Rs. 4,28,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realization.

Being dissatisfied, the owner of the offending bus has come up with the present appeal.

It may not be out of place to mention here that the claimants have neither filed any separate appeal nor any cross objection in this appeal filed by the owner of the bus.

After going through the materials on record, it appears that on 18th April, 2000 at about 10.30 night, when the victim, a divorcee without having any child, was proceeding on his bicycle, a bus owned by the appellant dashed with the bicycle, as a result, he came under the rear wheel of the bus, resulting in his death. The claim application was filed by the parents of the victim. According to the claimants, the victim used to work in Reliance Industries and had salary of Rs. 3000/- a month. He was aged 35 years. The claimants, thus, prayed for compensation of Rs. 8,50,000/-.

The claim application was contested by the owner of the bus thereby alleging that the driver of the bus had no negligence in the accident inasmuch when the victim came from the narrow lane, an unknown scooter had dashed the cycle, as a result, the cyclist had fallen under the rear wheel of the bus.

The Tribunal below on consideration of materials on record found that the driver of the offending bus was fully negligence and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased and relying on the salary slip produced by the claimants, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the victim had a monthly income of Rs. 2000/- and thereafter, for the purpose of ascertaining the prospective income, the Tribunal added 50% of the income and then deducted 1/3rd for the personal expenditure of the victim and ultimately, applied multiplier of 17 to arrive at a figure of Rs. 4,08,000/-. The Tribunal further added Rs. 20,000/- under the head of consortium. Thus, the Tribunal awarded total amount of Rs. 4,28,000/- as compensation.

Mr. Munshaw, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant at the first instance contends that the Tribunal below misconstrued the evidence on record in holding that the driver of the bus was solely responsible. According to Mr. Munshaw the Tribunal below on consideration of oral evidence adduced by the driver of his client should have held that it was due to the negligence of the driver of the unknown scooter that the accident occurred.

Mr. Jani, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants has supported the finding recorded by the Tribunal and has contended that in the fact of the present case, there is no justification of interfering with the just award granted by the Tribunal.

After going through the materials on record, it appears that there is no justification of disbelieving the eye witness and the Tribunal which had the advantage of noticing the demeanour of such witness having accepted his deposition, sitting in this appeal there is hardly any scope of disbelieving the said evidence. I, thus find no substance in the first contention of Mr. Munshaw regarding negligence.

I, however, find substance in Mr. Munshaw''s contention that the claimants being parents, there was no justification of deducting 1/3rd as personal expenditure of the victim and at the same time having regard to the age of the victim being 35 years, if we apply principle laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , the appropriate multiplier should be 16.

Thus on the basis of monthly income of Rs. 2000/- which is supported by salary slip and taking into consideration prospective income of the said income i.e. Rs. 2000 + Rs. 1000/- and thereafter, deducting half of the said amount (Rs. 1500/-) for personal expenditure, if we apply multiplier of 16, the figure comes to Rs. 2,88,000/- (Rs. 1500 x 12 x 16). Further Rs. 20,000/- should be added towards conventional heading. Thus, the total amount of compensation should be Rs. 3,08,000/- instead of Rs. 4,28,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

I, thus award Rs. 3,08,000/- as compensation instead of Rs. 4,28,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

It appears that in view of the order passed by this Court as a condition of stay of the execution of the award, the appellant was directed to deposit the entire amount before the Tribunal and the Tribunal below was directed to invest the same in any Nationalised Bank or Post Office as Fixed Deposit with a stipulation that the claimants will be entitled to withdraw periodical interest.

In view of reduction of Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rs. 4,28,000/- minus Rs. 3,08,000/-), I direct the Tribunal below to calculate the amount of interest on the proportionate amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- and to release the amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- with proportionate interest accrued thereon in favour of the owner of the vehicle and the balance amount be given to the claimants.

The appeal is partly allowed.