Facts
On October 18, 2019, at approximately 18:45 hours, the deceased, a 45-year-old pedestrian, was killed instantly when an S.T. Bus (GJ-18-Z-5605) driven by Opponent No. 1 hit him in a rash and negligent manner
Source reference: p. 1-2The legal heirs filed a claim petition (MACP No. 452/2019) seeking Rs. 15,00,000/-.
Source reference: no citationThe Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,60,000/- with 9% interest, holding the GSRTC driver solely negligent
Source reference: p. 2GSRTC appealed on the grounds that negligence was not proven by an eyewitness and that the income assessment and multiplier were exorbitant
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the driver of the S.T. Bus solely negligent for the accident in the absence of an eyewitness
Source reference: p. 2 / para. 42. Whether the compensation awarded was excessive regarding the assessment of income and the application of the multiplier
Source reference: p. 2 / para. 4Law Applied
The court applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) and the standard of "preponderance of probabilities" for civil liability in motor accident claims
Source reference: p. 3-4 / para. 8It relied on Bimla Devi v. H.R.T.C. (AIR 2009 SC 2819) and Parmeshwari Devi v. Amir Chand (2011) 11 SCC 635 regarding the appreciation of evidence and negligence
Source reference: p. 3 / para. 7For quantum, it followed Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 for the multiplier and personal deduction rules
Source reference: p. 4-5 / para. 10National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 for the addition of 40% towards future prospects
Source reference: p. 4-5 / para. 10Reasoning
The court found that the GSRTC failed to examine the bus driver to rebut the claimants' case; therefore, contributory negligence could not be attributed to the deceased pedestrian based on mere assumptions
Source reference: p. 3 / para. 8Applying res ipsa loquitur, the court held that since the bus hit a pedestrian, the driver's negligence was established by the circumstances and police papers
Source reference: p. 4 / para. 8Regarding quantum, the court validated the income of Rs. 6,000/- per month as reasonable for labour work, approved the 40% future prospects for a 45-year-old, confirmed a 50% deduction for an unmarried deceased, and upheld the multiplier of 14 as per settled law
Source reference: p. 4-5 / para. 10Holding
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal’s findings on both negligence and quantum were just and proper
The court affirmed the award of Rs. 6,60,000/- with 9% interest and directed any deposited amounts to be transmitted to the Tribunal
Source reference: p. 5 / para. 10-11No order as to costs was made
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONVersusLH OF DECD PARSINGBHAI RUMALBHAI BARIA & ORS., R/First Appeal No. 1149 of 2023 [2026:GUJHC:12345 (Projected based on text date)]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in