Back
2000 Supreme(Guj) 81
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :D.C.Srivastava, H.K.RATHOD
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
THACKER NAROTTAM KALYANJI - Respondent
First Appeal1753 of 1987
Decided On : 02/17/2000
Headnote:(a) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988) - Compensation - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Claim petition - Rash and negligent driving by Driver of bus - Deceased on scooter - Scooterist with slow speed - Negligency of driver of bus - Plea of contributory negligence could not find place - The Court is of view that finding recorded rash and negligent driving required no interference and also the finding about contributory negligency by Tribunal.
Court is of the view that the finding regarding negligence and rashness on the part of the driver recorded by the Tribunal requires no interference so also the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was not guilty of contributory negligence.
[Para 17]
(b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988) - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Award of interest at rate of 6% P.A. - Interest at lower rate - Appeal to increase rate of interest - Plea of appellant that interest is rightly granted hence cannot be enhanced - Hence rate of interest enhanced to 12% P.A. from date of application till date of payment.
In view of these three decisions of the Apex Court, Court is unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the interest was rightly awarded at 6% and that award of interest was discretionary with the Tribunal. Court is of the view that the interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of application till payment has to be enhanced to 12% p.a. from the date of application to the date of payment.
[Para 18]
(c) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988) - Sec. 110 - Compensation - Motor Accident Claims - Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- - Finding of Tribunal - Plea that prospective Industrialist was earning Rs. 3,000/- which ought to enhance - Hence required enhancement of compensation and MACT awarded at lower web - Hence require enhacement - Own objection raised - Held, if Tribunal instead of Rs. 3,000/- accepted income of deceased Rs. 2,000/- p.m. - Court do not find any error or arbitrariness in assessment - Hence require no interference.
In such a case where the business was not running and only proposals were made to start the business, the guesswork of the Tribunal cannot be said to be arbitrary. If the Tribunal instead of accepting Rs. 3000/- assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2000/- p.m., we do not find any error or arbitrariness in this assessment.
[Para 19]
The cross-objections partly succeed. Since conventional amount has been increased to Rs. 10000/- net compensation would now be Rs. 105000/-. The amount of interest is also enhanced from 6% to 12% from the date of application till the date of payment. In view of success of cross objection, the award of the Tribunal is modified. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 105000/- with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application till payment with proportionate costs throughout.
[Para 27]
( 1 ) THIS appeal and the cross objection arising out of the same accident involving common questions of law and fact are proposed to be disposed of by a common judgement.
( 2 ) THE appeal has arisen from the judgement and award dated 19. 4. 84 of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Kutch at Bhuj awarding Rs. 1 Lac as compensation for the death of Anilkumar aged about 20 years which occurred on account of the fatal accident between the bus of the appellant and the scooter driven by the deceased together with 6% p. a. interest with proportionate costs. The cross objection has been filed by the claimants-respondents claiming that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is less and Rs. 1 lac more should be awarded over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the interest be enhanced to 12% p. a. with costs throughout and the First Appeal of the appellant under consideration be dismissed.
( 3 ) THE brief facts giving rise to the appeal and cross objections are as under:- anilkumar aged about 20 years was a prospective industrialist and according to the claimants he would have earned Rs. 3000. 00 p. m. w. e. f. 19. 10. 80 from the business he wanted to start viz. small scale industry in Mining, Minerals Grinding and Levigation of China Clay. On 15. 7. 1980 at about 9. 45 a. m. Anilkumar was going on his scooter No. GJK 9146 towards Kukma on Bhuj Anjar Road. He was driving the scooter with moderate speed on the left side of the road. When he reached near Kukma the opposite party no. 1 before the Tribunal, who was driving Bus No. GTE 5222 owned by the opposite part no. 2 came from the opposite direction. The Bus was being driven in the middle of the road rashly, negligently and at an excessive speed. When the bus was at some distance from Anilkumar the driver gave side to another bus which came from behind. In these circumstances Anilkumar was not in a position to take his scooter to the extreme left side of the road. After giving side to another bus the driver did not take his bus to the left side nor did he slow down the speed and dashed his bus with the scooter of Anilkumar. The scooter as well as Anilkumar were dragged upto a distance of 200 feet from the site of collision. Anilkumar sustained serious injuries and he died at the spot. The scooter was also reduced to scrap and became useless. All this happened due to rashness, reckless and negligent driving of the bus by the driver opposite party no. 1. Anilkumar joined the course of Textile Technology but he was interested in setting up industry. Hence he left his studies and was preparing to commence the business of Mining, Minerals Grinding and Levigation of China Clay. On account of the accident he could not commence his business on 10. 10. 80. According to the claimants, who are parents of the deceased, Anilkumar would have earned atleast Rs. 3000. 00 p. m. initially from the business and would have maintained himself and the claimants from his income. Average expectancy of life in the family of the deceased is 75 years. Out of the income of Rs. 3000. 00 p. m. the deceased would have contributed Rs. 2000. 00 p. m. for maintenance of the claimants for 25 years. The income of the deceased would have been increased after some time. In this way, the claimants suffered loss of Rs. 6 lacs on account of premature death of the deceased. The scooter was also reduced to scrap. It was worth Rs. 10000. 00 but it was sold for Rs. 3000. 00 only and thus the claimants suffered a loss of Rs. 7000. 00 on this count. Rs. 10000. 00 were claimed for mental shock and suffering and Rs. 5000. 00 for funeral expenses and other religious ceremonies. Thus out of the net claim of Rs. 615000. 00, the claimants restricted their claim to Rs. 2 lacs.
( 4 ) THE case of the appellant and the driver was that the bus was not being driven rashly and negligently, the manner in which the accident took place was stated in their written statement as follows:-"the width of the road at
