SANOBANU NAZIRBHAI MIRZA Vs. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICE

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.