JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation is the appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 20.1.2020 passed by the MACT (Aux), Rajkot in MACP No. 1593/11 primarily on the ground that no negligence can be attributed to the bus driver as he was driving at a permissible speed and has stated that onus to prove rash and negligent driving is on the appellant and that no eyewitness has been examined by the claimants. It is stated that motorcycle dashed with the bus on the left side, where the driver of the heavy vehicle does not have proper and clear vision and therefore, the ground has been raised that the Tribunal has erred in apportioning 100% liability of the driver of the S.T. bus.

2. Advocate Ms. Vyoma Jhaveri for the S.T. Corporation submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has erroneously laid down 100% liability of the S.T. driver. It is further stated that the rate of interest granted in the year 2020 is beyond the RBI circulars and it should be 6% per annum and further stated that TDS amount of Rs.88,087/- has already been deposited with the income-tax office and thus, submitted that if at all it has to be refunded, then necessary proceedings has to be undertaken by the GSRTC for the refund.

3. Countering the arguments, Advocate Mr. Hemal Shah submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and submitted that the pillion rider of the motorcycle was examined to prove the negligence and accordingly, Savjibhai had deposed at Exh.25 and he is eye-witness to the accident and stated that the learned Tribunal has relied upon the evidence of the pillion rider vis-a-vis the bus driver and has concluded regarding the sole liability of the bus driver and further stated that the learned Tribunal has failed to grant consortium money for all the claimants, which the minor and the parents would be entitled apart from the widow as laid down in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130.

4. To the issue with regard to the rate of interest, Mr. Hemal Shah submitted that under instruction of the claimants and under consent, the claimants are ready for the reduction in the rate of interest considering the fact that it is GSRTC who is the appellant.

5. The facts of the case suggest that on 26.11.2011, the deceased along with the pillion rider were traveling on Ahmedabad-Rajkot National Highway road on the motorcycle bearing registration no. GJ-3 DJ-9805 on the side of the road. At about 04:45 hrs., when they were at Sat Hanuman Temple gate, which is situated near Rajkot, S.T. bus took them in impingement and caused the accident. The motorcycle driver succumbed to the injuries. The learned Tribunal, while examining the evidence on record, has appreciated the deposition of the pillion rider Savjibhai and has observed that in accordance to the FIR, charge-sheet has been filed against the S.T. driver. The pillion rider is an eye-witness. The accident had occurred in the evening while they were going from Kuvadva to Rajkot and the bus was also traveling from Kuvadva to Rajkot and the bus driver tried to overtake the motorcyclist and during that process, the bus driver had pushed the bus on the left side and dashed the motorcyclist and the deceased fell on the right hand side of the motorcycle and the wheel of the bus ran over him. While the pillion rider was thrown on the left side and thus, sustained only minor injuries. The learned Tribunal, thus, came to the conclusion that it was because of the negligent act of the bus driver overtaking the motorcycle and driving bus on the extreme side of the road, while S.T. bus driver was not examined by the S.T. Corporation and hence, no rebuttal evidence has come on record. The learned Judge, thus, came to the conclusion that had