- (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 20.04.2012 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra in Motor Accident Claim Case No.49/2012, vide which, the compensation of Rs.5,25,000.00 was awarded and the appellant-company was held liable for the same.
(2.) WHILE praying for setting aside the order, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that according to the claimants themselves, the bus was in stationary condition and the deceased climbed over the bus for putting down the goods lying on the roof top of the bus. During this process, he came into contact with electric line and succumbed to the injuries. The admitted facts which have come on record clearly establish the negligence of the deceased himself. It is further contended that the deceased could avoid the accident by keeping himself away from the electric wire if the electric wire was not at sufficient height from the roof top of the bus, he could have asked the bus driver to park the bus at some other -place so that the goods lying on the roof top of the bus could be safely put down. The deceased failed to take due care and caution and came in contact with the electric line which resulted into such accident. These circumstances nowhere establish the negligence of the bus driver and on the contrary the circumstances clearly indicate the negligence of the deceased himself. Therefore it was argued that the claimants are not entitled to receive any compensation under Section 166 of the Act for the negligence of the deceased himself. Secondly, the multiplier of 13 should have been adopted instead of 17 by taking into account the average age of the parents instead of the deceased himself. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Shakti Devi v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr, reported in MACD 2010 (SC) 266.
(3.) HEARD .;