AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appeal is by the Calcutta State Transport Corporation against an award of April 24, 2019 pertaining to a motor accident of October 9, 2013.
Two principal grounds are urged by the appellant: that though the claim was lodged under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there was no evidence in support of the allegation of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the relevant CSTC bus; and, that the quantum of compensation is not justified, particularly since an undeserving amount has been awarded on account of future prospects.
As far as rash and negligent driving is concerned, it appears that one Dipak Dutta examined himself as a witness. Such witness claimed that he was travelling on the route no.6 bus on the Garia to Howrah sector and, like the victim, such witness also intended to get off at the Mudiali bus stop on Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Road. However, even while the victim was attempting to disembark from the bus, the driver of the bus drove on in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the victim tripping over and being crushed under the wheels of the bus. Though suggestions were put to such witness on behalf of the appellant herein that the witness did not travel on the same bus or had not witnessed the incident, the relevant witness was steadfast in his assertion and there was little room to doubt that he had witnessed the incident and he was accurately recalling what had transpired on the fateful day. The trial court found the version of the witness to be credible and relied thereon to conclude that the victim suffered the accident because of the rash and negligent driving of the person at the of the CSTC bus.
As to the head of future prospects, the judgment in Pranay Sethi lays down strict rules as to what percentage of the income at the time of the death of the victim would be taken into account to assess his future prospects. It is a rather straightjacket formula which has been laid down and the duty of the tribunals and of High Courts, in terms of such judgment in Pranay Sethi, is to apply it clerically.
Since the two principal grounds urged do not appeal and are devoid of merit, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending or adhering to formalities to delay the receipt of the compensation by the claimants.
The appellant will be obliged to immediately inform the claimants of this order.
FMAT 795 of 2019 is dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.