The assessment of compensation should consider the economic conditions of the country where the deceased was employed and the income based on similar qualifications and work in India.

JUDGMENT :

MAUNA M. BHATT, J.

1. These appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act” for short) are filed challenging the judgment and award dated 19.7.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bharuch in MACP No. 79 of 2017, for the same accident.

2. First Appeal No. 2483 of 2021 is filed by the original claimants as appellants seeking enhancement of compensation whereas, First Appeal No. 889 of 2022 is filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) (original opponent No. 2), as appellant challenging negligence held and the quantum of compensation awarded. In MACP No. 79 of 2017, opponent No. 1 is driver of the bus, opponent No. 2 is GSRTC, opponent No. 3 is driver of Innova Car No. GJ-16-AU-5550, opponent No. 4 is owner of Innova Car and opponent No. 5 is Insurance Company of Innova Car.

3. Brief facts are:

3.1. That on 25.2.2017, Nabil Ibrahim Patel (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) was going in Innova Car No. GJ-16-AU-5550 to Godhra for attending the marriage ceremony of his brother. The said car was driven by original opponent No. 3. It was case of the claimants that when the car was going towards Godhra, S.T. Bus No. GJ-18-Y-9676 driven by original opponent No. 1 came with full speed in rash and negligent manner, because of which, it lost control over the steering and by coming on wrong side after crossing the divider, dashed with the Innova Car. The impact was so heavy that the car was dragged around 20 feet away and turned turtled. Because of the said accident, the deceased died on the spot. One Vaibhav also died during the treatment and Shakhir Hussain sustained serious injuries. All three were travelling in the same car. It was case of the original claimants that the deceased was healthy and fit at the time of accident and was aged 27 years. He was doing job at Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in Unified Real Estate Development Company as Executive Facility Manager and was earning SR (SAR Riyals) 7500 per month which comes to Rs. 1,22,000/- p.m. It was further the case of the original claimants that the accident occurred on account of sole negligence on the part of the driver of bus. For the said accident they filed Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 2,50,00,000/-.

4. Upon issuance of the notice, opponent Nos. 1 and 2 (driver and owner of the Bus) appeared and filed their written statement at Exh.29. Opponent Nos. 3 and 4 (driver and owner of Innova Car) filed their statement vide Exh.23 and opponent No. 5 Insurance Company of Innova Car also filed the written statement. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and upon appreciation of evidence on record in relation to negligence, held the driver of the S.T. Bus as sole negligent. The Tribunal held opponent Nos. 1 and 2, liable for the payment of compensation. The Tribunal exonerated opponent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 (driver, owner and Insurance Company of the Innova Car) from the claim petition.

In relation to compensation, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 19,58,000/- under different heads as under:

5. Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 (driver of bus and GSRTC) are directed to pay the compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of Claim petition till its realization.

6. Aggrieved by the said order as noticed earlier, the original claimants as appellants filed the First Appeal being F.A. No. 2483 of 2021 seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas, First Appeal No. 889 of 2022 is filed by the GSRTC challenging the quantum of compensation awarded as also the negligence held by the Tribunal.

7. We have heard Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate for the appellants (original claimants) and Ms. Sejal