AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.S. Jhaveri, J.—These appeals have been filed against the common judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot in M.A.C.P. Nos. 256/1990 to 258/1990 & 260/1990 dated 25.05.1995, whereby, the claim petitions were partly allowed to the extent that;
(i) In M.A.C.P. No. 256/1990 the original claimants were held to be entitled to recover compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/- along with interest and proportionate costs from opponent Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally.
(ii) In M.A.C.P. No. 257/1990 the original claimants were held to be entitled to recover compensation of Rs. 74,000/- along with interest and proportionate costs from all the opponents jointly and severally. However, the liability of opponent No. 5-Insurance Company was limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- only with interest and proportionate costs.
(iii) In M.A.C.P. No. 258/1990 the original claimants were held to be entitled to recover compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- along with interest and proportionate costs from all the opponents jointly and severally. However, the liability of opponent No. 5-Insurance Company was limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- only with interest and proportionate costs.
(iv) In M.A.C.P. No. 260/1990 the original claimants were held to be entitled to recover compensation of Rs. 84,000/- along with interest and proportionate costs from all the opponents jointly and severally. However, the liability of opponent No. 5-Insurance Company was limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- only with interest and proportionate costs.
The facts in brief are that on 17.04.1990, at about 0130 hrs., deceased Amitkumar Vinodray Vasant, deceased Vrajlal Girdharlal Vasant and deceased Manjulaben Vrajlal Vasant were travelling in a Car bearing registration No. GJ-1 529 driven by deceased Dilipbhai Vrajlal Vasant. However, at a particular place, a Tanker bearing registration No. GRP 4197, driven by Respondent No. 1 herein, dashed the said Car. As a result thereof, all the four persons, including the driver of the Car, sustained severe injuries and ultimately, died.
The legal heirs of the deceased persons filed claim petitions before the Tribunal. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions as aforesaid by way of the impugned award. Hence, the present appeals for enhancement of the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal.
4.0 Mr. Sandip C. Shah, learned Counsel for the Appellants (In First Appeal No. 6112/1995), original claimants, submitted that the accident in question took place on account of the sole negligence of the driver of the Tanker and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that there was contributory negligence and consequently, apportioned negligence to the extent of 25% on the deceased. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has also not properly appreciated the actual income and prospective income of deceased while calculating future loss of income. Further, the multiplier of 15 years is also on the lower side since the deceased was only 29 years of age at the relevant point of time. Hence, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 256/1990 deserves to be modified accordingly.
4.1 Learned Counsel for the Appellants (In First Appeal Nos. 6113/1995 to 6115/1995) submitted that while calculating future loss of income, the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective. It has been submitted that the Tribunal has not properly considered the oral and documentary evidence produced on record with regard to the income of the deceased. It has also been submitted that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is also on the lesser side. Hence, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be modified by enhancing the amount of compensation.
Learned Counsel for Respondent-Insurance Company (In First Appeal Nos. 6112/1995 to 6115/1995) submitted that the Tribunal has assessed the future income of the deceased after considering all the relevant documents on record. He further submitted that the Tanker in question was found to be on the correct side of the road and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that it was a case of contributory negligence. Hence, this Court may not interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.
Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. Though served, none appears on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4.
FIRST APPEAL No. 6112/1995 :
In order to prove the income of the deceased, the Appellants had produced on record the Income Tax Returns of the deceased vide Exhibits - 59 to 62 & 95. On the basis of the said documents, the Tribunal assessed the average annual income of the deceased for the last five years at Rs. 27,300/-. However, the Tribunal has assessed the prospective income of the deceased at Rs. 30,000/-, which, in my opinion, is improper and inappropriate. If we calculate the prospective income by adopting the formula of doubling the income and then taking the average thereof, viz. (27300 + 54600 = 81900 & 81900/2), then the income would come to Rs. 41,000/-. Thereafter, by deducting 1/3rd amount towards the expenses of the deceased, the income under the head of loss of dependency benefit would come to Rs. 27,300/-. The multiplier of 15 years adopted by the Tribunal, in my opinion, is just and appropriate since it is in consonance with the provisions of the M.V. Act and also as per the latest law on the subject. Thus, by adopting the multiplier of 15 years, the income under the head of future loss would come to (27,300 X 15) Rs. 4,09,500/-. However, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 3,00,000/-. Hence, the Appellants shall be entitled for additional amount of Rs. 1,09,500/- under the head of future loss of income.
It has come on record that the panchnama (Exh.79) does not say the actual spot of impact or the spot where the vehicles had actually collided. It is required to be noted that the driver of the Tanker was not examined by the original opponents as their Witness for reasons best known to them. However, merely on that ground, it could not be concluded that the driver of the Tanker was solely negligent for the accident, particularly, when the panchnama (Exh.79) is unable to throw any light as regards the place of actual impact. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal apportioned negligence between the driver of the Tanker and the Car at 75: 25 per cent, which, in my view, is just and appropriate.
Now, if we deduct 25% of the amount out of the total amount of Rs. 4,29,500 (4,09,500 + 20,000, viz. being the conventional amount), it would come to Rs. 3,22,125/-. Thus, the original claimants shall be entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 82,125/- (3,22,125 - 2,40,000 = 82,125).
So far as the rate of interest of 12% awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, in my opinion, the same is on the higher side and also against the provisions of the Act and the guidelines framed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in such cases. Looking to the present scenario and keeping in mind the guidelines framed by the Hon''ble Apex Court, it would be appropriate to grant interest 7.5% p.a. as against 12% granted by the Tribunal. Hence, the original claimants shall be entitled for interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of application till its realization along with proportionate costs from original opponent Nos. 1 to 3.
FIRST APPEAL Nos. 6113/1995 :
There is no dispute regarding the fact that the deceased was 14 years of age at the time of his death. The Tribunal has considered the notional / actual income of the deceased at Rs. 900/- per month on the premise that the deceased was attending the shop of his father. However, considering the fact that the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 15, which, admittedly, is on the lower side keeping in mind his age, even then I do not find it fit to interfere with the award since the ultimate difference, if any, which may be arrived at by reducing the income and by increasing the multiplier, would be meager. Hence, I agree with the final award passed by the Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 257/1990.
FIRST APPEAL Nos. 6114/1995 & 6115/1995 :
As regards the amount of compensation awarded in M.A.C.P. Nos. 258/1990 & 260/1990, in my opinion, the same are just and appropriate. The amounts have been arrived at by relying upon cogent documentary evidence, particularly, the Income Tax Returns of the deceased. The multipliers adopted by Tribunal is also in consonance with the recent guidelines framed by the Hon''ble Apex Court. Hence, I find no reasons to interfere with the awards passed in M.A.C.P. Nos. 258/1990 & 260/1990.
For the foregoing reasons, the following order is passed;
(i) F.A. No. 6112/1995: The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the original claimants shall be entitled for additional compensation of Rs. 82,125/-, over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs from original opponent Nos. 1 to 3. The rest of the award passed in M.A.C.P. No. 256/1990 remains unaltered.
(ii) F.A. No. 6113/1995 to 6115/1995: The appeals are dismissed.
The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.