GSRT CORPORATION Vs. PUKHRAJJI HIRALAL SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present First Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been preferred by the appellant - original opponent No. 2 - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation challenging the judgment and Award dated 31.7.1989 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Palanpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 74 of 1984, by which the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition awarding a total sum of Rs. 1,45,750 towards compensation to the claimants and holding the driver of the ST Bus negligent to the extent of 40% and driver of the Jeep Car negligent to the extent of 60%.

(2.) That in a vehicular accident between ST Bus and Jeep Car which took place on 12.2.1984, one Shankarlal Soni died and, therefore, the original claimants being his heirs preferred Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 74 of 1984 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Palanpur claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000. That on appreciation of evidence the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held the driver of the ST Bus negligent to the extent of 40% and driver of the Jeep Car negligent to the extent of 60% and on appreciation of evidence, considering the income of the deceased at the relevant time at the rate of Rs. 900 per month and deducting l/3rd amount for his personal expenditure, awarded future economic loss considering net loss of Rs. 600 and applying multiplier of 20, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,45,750. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and Award, the appellant original opponent No. 3 Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has preferred the present First Appeal.

(3.) Ms. Archana Patel, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant GSRTC has submitted that the appellant is not questioning the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal so far as negligence is concerned. It is submitted that, however, the appellant is challenging the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal so far as quantum is concerned. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding future economic loss applying multiplier of 20. It is submitted that even considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 3 ACC 708, at the most multiplier of 18 could have been applied by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, it is requested to allow the appeal to the aforesaid extent.