Case Note & Summary
The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) appealed against the judgment and award dated 04.02.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahal at Godhra in MACP No.452 of 2019, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation to the legal heirs of Parsingbhai Rumalbhai Baria, who died in a road accident on 18.10.2019. The deceased, aged 45 years, was walking on the left side of the road when a GSRTC bus driven rashly and negligently hit him, causing fatal injuries. An FIR was lodged at Morva (H) Police Station. The claimants sought Rs.15,00,000 compensation. The Tribunal held the bus driver solely negligent and awarded compensation. GSRTC argued that the Tribunal erred in relying solely on the FIR without examining eyewitnesses, and that the compensation was exorbitant, particularly the income assessment of Rs.6,000 per month and multiplier of 14. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found no merit in the appeal. It held that the FIR is a contemporaneous document and can be relied upon to determine negligence, especially when the driver did not examine himself. The income assessment was reasonable given the deceased was a labourer at a tea stall, and the multiplier of 14 was correct as per Sarla Verma. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Negligence - Reliance on FIR - In a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal can rely on the FIR to conclude negligence even if no eyewitness is examined, provided the FIR is lodged promptly and corroborates the accident circumstances - Held that the FIR is a contemporaneous document and can be used to determine negligence (Paras 3-4). B) Motor Accident Claims - Income Assessment - Deceased Labourer - In the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal can assess income based on the nature of work and prevailing wages - Held that assessing income of a tea stall labourer at Rs.6,000 per month is reasonable and not exorbitant (Para 3). C) Motor Accident Claims - Multiplier - Age of Deceased - As per the settled law in Sarla Verma v. DTC, the multiplier applicable for a deceased aged 45 years is 14 - Held that the Tribunal correctly applied multiplier of 14 (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the bus driver solely negligent based on FIR alone and in awarding exorbitant compensation without proper evidence?
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Negligence can be inferred from FIR in absence of eyewitness
- Income assessment in absence of documentary evidence
- Multiplier as per age of deceased
- Compensation under Motor Vehicles Act
