AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This First Appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act praying for modifying the judgment and order dated 14.2.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.) Gondal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.723 of 1998 and prayed to enhance amount of compensation by further Rs.5,00,000/- with appropriate cost and interest, as well be prayed to modify the same, inter alia, holding and directing that all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount arising out of the said claim case.
It is the case of the appellants that on fateful day i.e. on 19.9.1998 the deceased Maheshbhai Ramjibhai Raninga alongwith his family was travelling in the Ambassador Car bearing No.GJ-7A-2935 and going from Keshod to Rajkot and when they reached to Gondal bye-pass road near the outskirts of Village Bhojpara, at that time, the opponent No.4 driver of S.T.Bus No.GJ-18B-2056 came driving his bus from the opposite side in rash and negligent manner and at an excessive speed so as to endanger human life without observing traffic rules and all of a sudden came on wrong side and, therefore, with a view to save from the said bus the driver of Ambassador car has also taken said car on wrong side and, therefore, bus driver has tried to take his bus from wrong side to right side and ultimately dashed with left side of the Ambassador Car No.GJ-7A-2935 and hence the accident in question has happened.
On account of the said accident, the deceased Maheshbhai Ramjibhai Raninga died and applicant of M.A.C.P. No.723 of 1998 sustained grievous injuries. It has been further averred that the accident in question has happened due to sheer and sole negligence on the part of drivers of both the offending vehicles.
Heard Mr.Amar D.Mithani, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent No.3 and Mrs.Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent No.5.
Mr.Amar D.Mithani, learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is improper, unjust and against the provisions of law. He has submitted that deceased Maheshkumar Ramjibhai Raninga, who lost his life in the unfortunate vehicular accident dated 19.9.1998 was 32 years of age and has left behind two minor children and a widow who are claimants of M.A.C.P. No.723 of 1998.
He has submitted that according to the claimants the deceased was doing wholesale business of gold and silver and was doing the job work in the nature of "Madhav Jewelers" as its proprietor. He has submitted that before the Tribunal below the widow of the deceased was examined at Ex.39 and Income Tax Inspector was examined at Ex.63, while the
income tax returns were produced at Ex.56 to
59.
He has submitted that according to the appellants the Tribunal has not awarded the prospective rise in come and the multiplier ought to have been adopted of 16, in place of 15 and that under the head of conventional amount the Tribunal was required to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards the funeral expenses.
He has submitted that the Tribunal award future loss of income Rs.57,000/- per annuam net income, less one third (1/3) amount towards the personal expenses i.e. Rs.38,000/- multiplied with a multiplier of 15 years equal to Rs.5,70,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards conventional amount and Rs.2500/- towards funeral expenses. Lastly, he has submitted that learned Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the multiplier of 16 as per the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors., vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr ., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 when sufficient evidence were produced on record. He, therefore, submitted that the award requires to be modified as prayed for.
Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent No.3 and Mrs.Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent No.5 have submitted that the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Gondal, is just and proper and do not require any interference. They have submitted that the Tribunal has correctly taken the income as also applied the correct multiplier and the same requires no interference.
I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties at length and in great details. I have perused the averments made in the memo of appeal. Before the Tribunal the appellants produced sufficient evidence regarding income and age of the deceased which is just and proper. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the claimant. The multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. Hence this Court is inclined to award multiplier of 16 as per the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors., vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr ., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Keeping that in mind, this Court is of the view that multiplier of 16 is just and proper.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. However, considering the facts of the case deduction towards personal expenses at the rate of ; Rs.57,000/- per annum net income + prospective rise in future income Rs.28,500/- = Rs.85,500/- less one third (1/3) amount towards the personal expenses multiplied with a multiplier of 16 years = Rs.9,12,000/- and Rs.30,000/- towards conventional and Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses. The learned Tribunal has passed the award of Rs.5,92,500/-. Therefore present appellants are entitled to enhance amount of compensation of Rs.3,55,000/- along with 9% from the date of application filed before the Tribunal. The respondents are directed to deposit the aforesaid amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. Upon deposit of the amount the same shall be disbursed to the appellants on proper verification. Thus the award deserves to be modified to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent
back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.