V.GOPALA GOWDA,J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THE legal representatives of the deceased Nazirbhai who died in a road accident on 30th May, 1998 were aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.01.2012 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal No. 1549 of 2002 wherein the High Court had partly allowed the appeal of the respondent and reduced the compensation awarded in favour of the claimants by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') at Ahmedabad in MACP No. 563 of 1998 dated 23.10.2001 from Rs.3,51,300/ to Rs.2,51,800/ with a direction to the appellants claimants to refund the excess amount of Rs.99,500/ along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The appellants claimants have filed this appeal urging certain grounds and prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the High Court. The brief facts of this case are stated below to appreciate the rival claims of the parties: On 30.05.1998, the deceased Nazirbhai was going on his bicycle to his contract work of polishing at about 10.30 a.m. at the house of one Rashidbhai Pathan in Haranwali Pole. While he was waiting for other labourers at Kalidas Mill Kachha cross road with a bicycle, at about 10.45 a.m., one Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service (AMTS) bus bearing registration No. GJ 1 TT 8337 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner in the one way and hit him with its front portion and knocked him down and caused bodily injuries. He was crushed under the wheel of his bicycle and later succumbed to his injuries at 6.00 p.m on the same day. The legal heirs of the deceased his widow, his minor children and his parents filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for awarding just and reasonable compensation wherein the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,51,300/ along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till realization. The respondent aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal filed an appeal in the High Court urging for reduction of compensation awarded in favour of the claimants on the ground that the Tribunal has committed an error on facts and in law in assessing the income of the deceased on the basis of the IInd schedule to Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the M.V. Act) and that the accident being of the year 1998, income should have been assessed as Rs.15,000/ per annum. The High Court partly allowed the appeal of the respondent and reduced the compensation to Rs.2,51,800/ and ordered that the excess amount of Rs.99,500/ shall be returned to the respondent along with interest @ 9% per annum. Being aggrieved by this judgment and award passed by the High Court, the legal representatives of the deceased filed this civil appeal urging various grounds and legal contentions and requested this Court to set aside the impugned judgment and award and further, award just and reasonable compensation by modifying the judgment of the Tribunal.
(3.) IT is urged by the learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Saroj Raichura, that the Gujarat High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction has modified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal after a long lapse of 11 12 years, which is in violation of the right to life and natural justice and statutory rights of the appellants under the provisions of the M.V.Act. Another ground urged is that the High Court was not right in holding that the compensation awarded by the learned Members of the Tribunal is excessive and consequently, the direction issued to the appellants to refund an amount of Rs.99,500/ along with an interest of 9% interest after long lapse of 11 years is wholly unsustainable in law. It is submitted that at the time of death the deceased was aged 25 years and was hale and hearty and would have lived long, had he not met with the accident. Prior to the accident, he was engaged in the work of polishing and colouring and was earning Rs.4,000/ to Rs.5,000/ per month and he was good at his work and would have progressed in the future. It is urged that since the appellant No.3 was born after the death of the deceased, compensation under the head of loss of fatherhood should also be awarded. The further legal contention urged is that the High Court interfered with the judgment and award by reducing the compensation after 11 long years even though the Tribunal after proper appreciation of facts and legal evidence on record has rightly awarded the compensation. The same should not have been interfered with by the High Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, the appellants have approached this Court to set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and prayed to pass an order awarding just and reasonable compensation.;