DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER (GODHARA) Vs. DAXABEN VIKRAMBHAI BHARWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal is filed by the appellant - S.T. Corporation being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dtd. 10/12/2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Panchmahals at Godhra in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1145 of 2008, by which the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and thereby awarded Rs.910,12,100.00 to the claimants by holding S.T. Driver 100% negligent for the accident.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, on 10/3/2008, the deceased - Vikrambhai was going on his motorcycle in very slow speed from Vadodara to Godhra, at that time, at about 07:15 hours, the opponent No.1 - present respondent No.3 - driver of the ST Bus bearing registration No.GJ-17-Y-159 came with the bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle near Mouje Boru turning. The deceased received multiple injuries and ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries. Criminal complaint being CR-I No.66 of 2008 has been lodged before the Kalol Police Station, District : Panchmahals and claim petition has been filed by the heirs of the deceased i.e. widow and son, before the Tribunal. Notices were served and the ST Corporation has filed its written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition. Issues were framed by the Tribunal at Exh.18. Oral as well as documentary evidence were recorded by the Tribunal, which are mentioned in the Para : 8 and 9 of the impugned award. After considering the submissions made by the rival parties, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation as noted above. Hence, the present appeal by the ST Corporation before this Court.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Hardik Rawal for the appellant - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in attributing 100% negligence to the driver of the ST bus by ignoring the fact that the deceased has expired on 22/6/2008, whereas the accident has occurred on 10/3/2008 i.e. prior to about three months ago. He has submitted that there is no nexus between accident and cause of death which has occurred after almost three months from the date of accident. He has submitted that the amount awarded towards future loss of income is on higher side, as the Tribunal has considered 50% prospective loss of income, where at the best, the claimant can get 40%. He has drawn attention of this Court towards medical papers and also towards postmortem note where the cause of death is shown as septicemic shock and severe cagnexia with gangrene of the lower portion of large bowl. Therefore, he has submitted that prima facie, it seems that there is no nexus between the accident and cause of death and therefore, he has submitted that the appeal is required to be allowed in toto or in the alternative, on the count that the Tribunal has calculated the excess amount of quantum by adding prospective loss of income 50%, which should be considered as 40%. Learned advocate Mr. Rawal for the appellant has taken me to the deposition of Dr. Parsottambhai Ganeshbhai Rathod at Exh.31 and has pointed out that in cross-examination, the Doctor has stated that he has performed the postmortem of the deceased and he found that due to serious problems in the large intestine, the death has occurred and therefore, Mr. Rawal, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that it cannot be said that there is nexus between accident and cause of death. He has also pointed out that the accident has occurred on the turning and further, the motorcycle is coming in full speed and in negligent manner and the deceased is responsible for occurrence of accident. Learned advocate Mr. Rawal for the appellant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation versus Suresh Chand Sharma and others reported in (2010) 6 SCC 555 and has submitted that the Tribunal has to give reasons regarding 50% addition as prospective loss of income, which in the present case is not given. He has submitted that this appeal may be allowed.