BHARATBHAI KALUBHAI PATOLIA Vs. GHANSHYAM PALIVALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this Appeal, the Appellants-claimants have challenged the judgment and award dtd. 2/11/2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Junagadh in M.A.C.P. No.667 of 2005.

(2.) The facts as getting unfolded to raise the Claim Petition before the learned Tribunal are as under :- On 5/6/2003, the appellants alongwith the deceased and their friends were proceeding as passengers in a Luxury Bus bearing Registration No.RJ-27-P-6355 owned by the respondent No.2 to visit Shrinathji, after purchasing the tickets. Their Bus had proceeded towards Ahmedabad via Nadiad on the Super Four Track National Highway. The Bus driver was driving the bus in full speed and in a rash and negligent manner. While they had reached about 10 Kms away from Nadiad, a Scorpio car bearing Registration No.GJ-3-AB-1510 was proceeding in front of the Luxury Bus in full speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the Scorpio car suddenly applied brakes, the luxury bus collided at the rear side of the Scorpio car, the Luxury bus turned turtle three-four times and fell in a pit about 30 feet deep. Injuries were sustained by others while the deceased was taken to Nadiad Hospital whereby the Doctor on duty declared the deceased as dead. A complaint was registered at Nadiad Rural Police Station as I- C.R. No.55 of 2005 on the same day, the panchnama of the place was carried out and the post mortem was also carried out on the same day.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the appellants-claimants Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi submitted that the deceased was doing embroidery work and was earning Rs.5,000.00 per month and also had a sewing machine, the purchase receipt was produced on record, but since no books of accounts were maintained, the earnings of Rs.5,000.00 could not be proved. It is further submitted that since the above fact was not appreciated, the learned Tribunal could have considered the deceased as a housewife and should have appropriately granted amount in relation to the work done by the homemaker, i.e. looking after the family, raising the children and supporting the husband. It is further submitted that the claimants, i.e. the minor children and the husband ought to have been granted consortium loss taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130.