The court established that both drivers were negligent in a road accident, attributing 70% negligence to the bus driver and enhancing compensation for the victims.

ORDER :

1. The present First Appeals, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are preferred by the appellants – original claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 29.12.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.61 of 2003 and MACP No.62 of 2003.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 The brief fact of the present appeals is such that on 23.02.2002, deceased Bhalaji Thakor and deceased Talaji Thakor were travelling in Jeep No.GJ-2-K-2139 towards Mehsana and when it reached near the place of accident, one ST Bus No.GJ-18-V-7612 came from opposite side and met with accident. In the said accident, deceased received injuries and later on died.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Manan Shah submits that he was initially appearing fro owner of the jeep. Since owner of jeep has not contacted during hearing the matter, he has filed retired purshish before the Registry as advocate for the owner of the jeep. Considering the submission, he is treated to be retired as advocate of owner of jeep.

4. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

5. Apt to note that the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of Legislation. The concept of just and fair compensation is integral and seminal to the MV Act. The compensation to be awarded under the principle of just and fair compensation to the injured of the road accident or the legal representative/s of the deceased person is based on the principle of fairness, reasonableness and equability. Anguish of the heart or for mental turbulence being consequential result of the road accident cannot be actually compensated, but the quint essentiality lies in adopting holistic and pragmatic view to the computation of the compensation for the loss sustained, which is to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Although exact or perfect arithmetical calculation of compensation for reparation of the loss arrived from the road accident is almost impossible. The Tribunal is bestowed with duty to make an endevour to award just compensation regardless of the amount claimed by the claimants. The determination of the quantum of compensation therefore, must be liberal and not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scale. Needless to state that money may be awarded, so that something tangible may be procured to reach something else of the like nature, which has been destroyed or lost, but money cannot renew physical frame that has been battered and shattered being a result of the road accident. Yet Tribunal to endavour to bring back victim to stage of pre-road accident as far as possible Thus, the award must be reasonable and cannot be assessed with moderation though it cannot at the same time be pity and what could be granted must be just, fair and equitable compensation.

6. By impugned judgment, learned Tribunal believed that Jeep driver is sole negligent in causing road accident. Having given detail analysis of evidence on record, learned Tribunal exonerated ST driver and ST Corporation from liability to pay compensation and held that since Jeep was plying on wrong side and left no option for ST Bus coming from other side to apply sudden brake and therefore, dragging of jeep upto 40 feet from the spot and sudden brake marks on the road is inadequate to held ST bus driver liable for causing road accident. By such finding learned Tribunal exonerated ST bus driver from liability in causing road accident and did not believe to be wrong doer and exonerated from liability to pay compensation.