The Court affirmed that consortium loss includes love and affection, emphasizing only one compensation for this category is justified, and upheld the Tribunal's assessment of dependency loss in motor vehicle accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this Appeal, the Appellant-The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. (GSRTC) has challenged the judgment and award dated 13.09.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Valsad in M.A.C.P. No.143 of 2010. The Cross Objection is filed by the claimants.

2. The facts giving rise to the present Appeal can be put succinctly as under :-

On 28.02.2009, at about 14.30 hours the deceased Nitinkumar Natwarlal Bhandari aged 25 years, at the time of accident was going from Ambawadi to Umargam. When he reached Mohangam, Khanmora Road, the driver (respondent No.1) of a State Transport Bus bearing Registration No.GJ-18-V-6589 came on the wrong side, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased, haphazardly dragged the deceased because of which the deceased died. A First Information Report was registered at Bhilad Police Station as I-C.R. No.19 of 2009. A charge- sheet was also filed against the respondent No.1.

3. Learned Advocate for the appellant-GSRTC Ms. Kiran D. Pandey submitted that learned Tribunal in assessment of rashness and negligence of the State Transport Bus Driver is not supported by documentary evidence. It is further stated that the victim was driving his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner, he was on the wrong side and collided with the bus, which shows that the deceased was solely liable for the accident. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal was required to appreciate the evidence on record to conclude regarding the negligence aspect and submitted that the findings of the learned Tribunal of the rash and negligent driving of the Bus Driver is erroneous. It is also submitted that the claimants had not joined the Insurance Company of the motor cycle which was involved in the accident. The learned Tribunal has not appreciated the complaint and the panchnama on record in its right perspective. The observations made by the learned Tribunal are absolutely vague without due regard to the evidence on record of the bus driver.

3.1. Learned Advocate Ms. Kiran D. Pandey submitted that the learned Tribunal has not followed the dictums of the superior Court and also submitted that the total compensation awarded would be just and reasonable and would not be considered as insufficient.

4. Learned Advocate for the claimants Mr. Tirth Nayak submitted that the evidence was produced on record by way of statement of the brother of the deceased Ankit Natwarlal Bhandari, who had produced his examination-in-chief at Exhibit 22, has stated that the Bus Driver had come on the wrong side and was driving the bus, endangering human life and dashed the deceased leading to his death. In support of the evidence, he had produced the complaint at Exhibit 15 and the Panchnama at Exhibit 16.

5. The complaint was given by Mahendra Mohanbhai Bhandari, who had immediately gone at the place of accident on receiving information. As per the complainant, the motor cycle of the deceased was lying in front of the right wheel ran over the head of the deceased. He had stated that the deceased was his paternal cousin. It is submitted that the complainant is the person who had immediately seen the place of accident and has given his version as seen by him. The facts get corroborated by the panchnama. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence of the claim