GSRTC Vs. RAMABEN MANUBHAI PANCHOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocate Mr. Dipen A. Desai for appellant Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and learned Advocate Mr. Shakeel A. Qureshi for respondents claimants.

(2.) BY way of this appeal, appellant ST Corporation has challenged award passed by MACT Bhavnagar in MACP No. 411/96 Exh. 27 dated 4. 11. 96 wherein claims tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,38,500. 00 being 50 per cent responsibility of Corporation with 15 % interest thereon in favour of respondents claimants. Accident occurred on 20. 4. 96 at about 2. 30 p. m. on the main road of Mahuva Rajula Savarkundla between Bhadara and Dudhala, near village Bhadia between Tempo and ST Bus. Deceased, husband of the claimant namely Manubhai Dahyabhai Pancholi expired in the said vehicular accident.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Desai raised various contentions while challenging award made by claims tribunal. He submitted that before claims tribunal, except widow, no other person was examined to prove negligence of either of drivers. No eye witness was examined. No driver of tempo as well as ST Bus were examined and, therefore, in absence of any direct evidence, claims tribunal has committed gross error in deciding negligence of both the drivers. He submitted that claims tribunal has committed gross error in assessing quantum of compensation in absence of cogent evidence as regards income of deceased. He submitted that in absence of cogent evidence, claims tribunal has committed gross error in assessing monthly income of deceased at Rs. 3500. 00 p. m. He submitted that multiplier of 18 adopted by claims tribunal is on higher side considering age of deceased 28 years. He also raised contention that as per evidence of widow, an amount of Rs. 15000. 00 was spent for medical treatment but claims tribunal awarded Rs. 25000. 00 for medical treatment. He also submitted that deceased was doing diamond cutting work and from such cutting of diamond, whether deceased was receiving Rs. 3500. 00 income or not, for that, no cogent evidence was produced by claimant and certificate was given by employer Exh. 22 but author of such certificate namely employer was not examined before claims tribunal and, therefore, claims tribunal ought not to have relied upon such certificate and therefore, claims tribunal has committed gross error in assessing income of deceased. Except that, no other submission was made by learned Advocate Mr. Desai before this Court and no decision was cited by him in support of the contentions raised by him before this Court.