AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 17.04.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Bhavnagar at Mahuva in MACP No. 604/15, the appellant has preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The followings facts emerge from the record of the appeal-
2.1 The present Motor Accident Claims Petition under section 166 of the Act was preferred on the factual premises that on 23.09.2008 deceased Babubhai Bachubhai was travelling in rickshaw bearing registration No. GJ-4-X-3985 from Mahuva to village Kalsar. The said rickshaw was driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed and when the said rickshaw reached near Naip-Kalsar road, the rickshaw turned turtle as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. The claimants relied upon the various documents such as FIR at Exhibit 33, panchnama of the place of accident at Exhibit 34, PM Note at Exhibit 36, copy of inquest panchnama at Exhibit 35, birth certificate of the deceased at exhibit 39, Copy of RC book at Exhibit 45, copy of the policy at Exhibit 46 and copy of permit at exhibit 47. The claimant original opponent no.1 filed his written statement at Exhibit 11. The insurance company also filed its written statement at at Exhibit 16. As against the claim raised by claimants of Rs.7,00,000/-, the learned
Tribunal passed the impugned award and awarded compensation of Rs.6,26,000/- with 9% interest. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
Heard Ms. Mausami Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Rajesh Mankad for respondents no.2 to 6 & 8, the original claimants.
The learned counsels appearing for the parties submitted that respondent no.1 is the driver of the rickshaw and Ms. Nanavati therefore submitted that as the appeal is directed only on the short ground of quantum, he may be permitted to be deleted from the array of this appeal. Respondent no.1 stands deleted.
This Court passed the following order on 06.09.2017 -
"Notice for final disposal only on the ground of quantum returnable on 28.09.2017. Record & Proceedings be called for from the Tribunal."
Ms. Nanavati further contended that while considering the aspect of deduction towards personal expenses, the Tribunal has erred in considering original respondent no.7 Bachubhai Baraiya as dependent of the deceased. Ms. Nanavati further submitted that in fact he was not the dependent of the deceased, but he was deleted, still however, the Tribunal has wrongly considered that the deceased had seven dependents whereas in reality, the deceased had only six dependents. Ms. Nanavati, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co . reported in (2012) 6 SCC 421 contended that only 1/4th is required to be deducted towards personal expenses and therefore, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency deserves to be altered and modified to that extent.
Mr. Rajesh Mankad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents claimants has candidly submitted that this Court may pass appropriate order as it is a matter of fact that Bachubhai Baraiya is not the dependent of the deceased.
No other or further submissions are made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
Considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 as well as Santosh Devi (supra) and it being an admitted that that the deceased had only six dependents, the Tribunal has committed error by giving effect of 1/5th deduction towards personal expenses and it should be 1/4th.
Having observed so therefore, respondents claimants would be entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency as under -
Rs.4000/- (income) - 1/4th (personal expenses = Rs.3000/- X 12 X 15 (multiplier) = 5,40,000/-
Resultantly therefore, the appellant would be entitled to total compensation as under -
Head Amount
Loss of dependency Rs. 5,40,000/
Loss of estate, loss of expectation of life, loss of consortium and funeral expenses Rs. 50,000/
Total Compensation Rs.5,90,000/
The impugned judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid. The Tribunal is directed to refund an amount of Rs.36,000/- along with proportionate interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to the appellant insurance company.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
As the main appeal is disposed of, no orders in Civil Application and the same stands disposed of accordingly.