High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 12 GUJ CK 0276

Jenuben Alarakha Sheikh and 3Ors. vs Garasiya Bhagvat Singh Jilubha and 2Ors.

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 2 December 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. S. Jhaveri, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Appeal No. 5769 of 1998

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 441 words

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this Appeal the original claimant has challenged the judgment and order dated 13.6.1996 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gondal, passed in M.A.C. Petition No. 421 of 1991, whereby the tribunal awarded Rs. 92,000/-to the Appellants with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the realization.

2.

The short facts of this case are that on 22.9.1991, Alarakha Hajibhai was driving Taxi bearing Registration No. GTP-2217 along with other passengers viz. Shantilal, Ravindra Shantilal were also travelling in the said Taxi. They were going to Jamkandorna from Dhoraji and at that time, opponent No. 1 was driving the truck bearing No. GTA-3201 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the taxi and hence the accident took place. In the accident Alarakha Hajibhai and other two persons died.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 3000/-per month. Despite the same, the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that in absence of documentary evidence it cannot be believed that the deceased was earning Rs. 3000/-and in considering Rs. 750/-only as the income per month. Learned Counsel for the Appellants also contended that the Tribunal has not considered the future loss of income and therefore the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side.

4.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent Mr. Parikh submitted that the income assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper. However, learned Counsel for the Respondent was not in a position to defend that the Tribunal has not considered the future loss of the income.

5.

Keeping in mind the evidence on record the Tribunal has assessed Rs. 500/-as his income after deducting 1/3 from Rs. 750/-which was considered as income. In my view, looking to the evidence on record, Rs. 1125/-should be considered as his income and after deducting 1/3 towards his expenditure his income would come to Rs. 750/-per month and Rs. 750/-multiplied by 12 months come to Rs. 9000/-. Upon adopting the multiplier of 15 years, the total amount comes to Rs. 1,35,000/-. Considering 20% negligence, Rs. 27,000/-should be deducted from the said amount. Hence, it comes to Rs. 1,08,000/-.

6.

The claimant will also be entitled to additional sum of Rs. 36,000/-under the head of future loss of income after deducting 20% for his negligence and interest will be calculated at the rate of 7% from the date of the application. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent.

7.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.