ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mrs. Falguni D. Patel for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. Ashish H. Shah for respondent No.1 – original claimant and learned advocate Mr. G. C. Mazmudar for respondent No.4. Perused the record.

2. Appellant herein is Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, whereas respondent No.1 is orignal claimant being husband of the deceased – victim of the road accidnet. Respondent No.2 is owner of the Motorcycle, which was driven by respondent No.1 and respondent No.4 is the Insurance Company of the motorcycle bearing No. GJ – 1 – CH 9489.

3. In fateful accident on 21.03.2004, when respondent No.1 being orgiinal claimant was driving motorcycle of his brother and with his wife as a pillionrider, he met with an accident with ST Bus beaing No.GJ–18–V–7277. In such accident his wife has received fatal injuries. Because of accidental death of his wife, claimant has preferred MACP No.560 of 2004 claiming an amount of Rs.9,00,000/-. Whereas he has preferred MACP No.543 of 2004 for personal injuries claiming an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. After allowing all the parties to adduce evidnece by consolidated and commmon judgment and award dated 28.02.2018, the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ahmedabad City has awarded an amount of Rs.17,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant, whereas Rs.5,46,000/- for the death of his wife with 8% interest only.

4. Being aggrieved by an award of Rs.5,46,000/- in MACP No. 560 of 2004, the appellant State Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal mainly on following two grounds;

(1)Claimant himself was negligent;

(2)Amount of compensation awarded for death of wife of the claimant is excessive.

5. However, I do not find any substnace in any such submission and, therefore, I do not think it proper to admit such appeal and keep it pending before its dismissal after a decase, when the tribunal has not committed any error or mistake in impugned award either while considering 100% negligence of the bus driver and awarding Rs.5,46,000/- for the death of a young lady of 26 years only.

6. So far as issue regarding negligence is concerned, the learned advocate for the appellant has vehemitically submitted that since driver of the ST bus has stepped into witness box and submitted that he is not negligent, the tribunal has failed to consider that ST bus driver was not negligent at all but accident has tookplace because of the negligence of the claimant only. Relevant discussion is in para 16 to 19, which runs into 7 pages. Perusal of such discussion, makes it clear that when the claimant and the victim reached near Subhash Bridge Circle, the ST bus had came from their backside, which was driven by its driver rashly and negligently without observing traffic rules and trying to overtook the motorcycle withut blowing horne and while doing so, left side of the bus was dashed with the motorcycle. Because of such impact, deceased – victim fell down on the road and left side wheel of the ST bus had ran over the head of the victim, which resulted into spoteneous death of victim, whereas claimant has also received several injuries including fracture and his bike was also damaged. For such accidnet FIR was registered against bus driver. Since claimant was driving the motorcycle, he was aware about the natuer of accident and, therefore, he stated his story on oath in his deposition whereas in his cross examination it has came on record that he had not noticed or seen the bus before the accident and that left portion of the bus had dashed with motorcycle and because of such impact both the riders of motorcycle were fell down. Thereby, when appellant has cross examined the eyewitnesses of the incident confirming that claimant has not seen the bus prior to accident and when there is categorical evidence on record that bus had came from backside of the motorcycle and dashed with the motorcycle, there is no substance in the submission by the appellant that when left side of the bus has dashed with