AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICE Vs. KANTILAL BADHAJI CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ["the Act" for short] is at the instance of the Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, the owner of the offending bus, and is directed against an award dated 29th July 2005, passed by the M.A.C. Tribunal [Auxiliary] Fast Track Court No.2, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P. No. 263 of 2001, thereby partly allowing the claimapplication and awarding a sum of Rs. 2,03,000/ - with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of filing of the application till realization for the death of the victim who was run over by the wheel of the bus of the appellant.

(2.) IT appears that inspite of service of notice in this appeal, the claimants have not come forward to oppose this appeal. After hearing Mr. Munshaw, the learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant and after going through the materials on record, I find that there is no dispute that on 21st October 2000, at about 10.00 a.m, the victim who was a pillion -rider, was run over by bus no. GJ -1 -T -7704 of route no. 34/2. According to the claimants, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus, the victim had fallen of the road and right rear wheel of the bus had run over and crushed her head. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 5.00 lakh on the allegation that the victim used to earn Rs.70/ - to Rs.80/ - a day by labour work and she used to keep household matters, particularly, kitchen. The claim -application was opposed by the present appellant by filing a written statement alleging that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the scooter, where the victim was a pillion -rider, as a result, she had fallen down and was run over by the rear wheel.

(3.) AT the time of hearing, the driver of the bus did not come forward to give evidence denying the allegations made in the claimapplication and the learned Tribunal below, by drawing an adverse presumption against the appellant held that there was cent percent negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus, and awarded the amount of compensation as indicated above. I agree with the learned Tribunal below that the best eyewitness being the driver of the bus in question having avoided to enter the witness -box to face the cross -examination, the Tribunal below was justified in holding that the said driver was solely negligent. The learned Tribunal below treated the prospective income of the victim to be Rs. 1500/ - a month, deducted 1/3rd personal expenditure and applied the multiplier of 15 to arrive at a figure of Rs. 1,80,000/ -. Apart from that, a further sum of Rs. 10,000/ - for loss of expectation of life, Rs. 10,000/ - for consortium and Rs. 3,000/ - towards funeral expenses were awarded. Thus, total amount awarded by the Tribunal below was Rs. 2,03,000/ -. The case being one of the fatal nature, I do not find any reason to interfere with the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal below.