The Gujarat High Court dismissed the first appeal by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court affirmed the finding of 90% driver negligence but noted an error regarding the multiplier for dependency compensation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FA/1243/2000
1/4
JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL No. 1243 of 2000
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?To be referred to the Reporter or not ?Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the 4 constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge?=========================================================
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORP. - Appellant(s)
Versus
ALKABEN WD/O RAMESHBHAI GANESHBHAI PRAJAPATI & 5 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR HS MUNSHAWfor Appellant(s) : 1,
MR SANDIP C SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1 - 6.
=========================================================
CORAM :HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 08/02/2012
ORAL JUDGMENT
FA/1243/2000
2/4
JUDGMENT
29.03.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P. No.234/1996 whereby, the claim petition was allowed in part and the respondents, original claimants, were awarded total compensation of Rs.3,86,100/- along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of application till its realization.
FA/1243/2000
3/4
JUDGMENT
panchnama of the scene of accident at Exhibit-23 and the FIR at Exhibit-22, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred on account of the 90% negligence of the AMTS bus driver and 10% negligence of the deceased. In my opinion, while recording such finding, the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and has rightly held the AMTS bus driver 90% negligent for the accident. Having gone through the impugned award, I find that the Tribunal was completely justified in awarding the compensation under all the heads except, the head of dependency. The Tribunal was justified in assessing monthly dependency at Rs.2,300/-, but, the Tribunal has erred in adopting the multiplier of 15. The Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 16, considering the ratio laid down by Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 . But as the cross-objection is not filed in this appeal, no enhancement can be made. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal and hence, I find no reasons to entertain the present appeal.
FA/1243/2000
4/4
JUDGMENT
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.]
..mitesh..
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in finding 90% contributory negligence on the part of the bus driver.
Whether the compensation head of dependency ought to be enhanced by adopting a higher multiplier.
Whether the appeal regarding the compensation award should be entertained.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and AnotherReferred¶5
2009(6) SCC 121 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORP.
ALKABEN WD/O RAMESHBHAI GANESHBHAI PRAJAPATI
KS JHAVERI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court