AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,
R.M.Chhaya, J",
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 17.9.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural)",
in Motor Accident Claim Petition no.355 of 1995, the appellantsÂoriginal claimants have preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles",
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Actâ€).",
Following facts emerge from the record of the appeal:Â,
2.1 It is the case of the appellants â€" original claimants that on 9.2.1995 at about 12:00 p.m., the deceased â€" Vipulbhai was driving the scooter",
bearing registration no. GJÂ1 EÂ7425 and when he reached Village Talav in Sanand Taluka, S.T. Bus bearing registration no. GJÂ1 TÂ9028 came",
from the other side and dashed with the scooter. It is further the case of the appellants â€" original claimants that because of the accident, Vipulbhai",
sustained serious injuries and was admitted to the hospital for treatment. It is further the case of the appellants â€" original claimants that the bus was,
being driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the scooter driven by Vipulbhai. The scooter was dragged for 20 to 30 ft. and Vipulbhai,
in fact was crushed and ultimately, succumbed to the injuries in the hospital.",
2.2 An FIR was lodged with Sanand Police Station at Exh.32 and the present claim petition was filed by the appellants under Section 166 of the Act,
and claimed compensation of Rs.40,00,000/Â.",
2.3 It is the case of the appellants â€" original claimants that Vipulbhai was a businessman and was earning Rs.20,000/ per month. One of the",
appellant â€" Natvarlal Morakhia was examined at Exh.28 and the appellants â€" original claimants also relied upon the documentary evidence, such",
as, FIR at Exh.32, Panchnama of the scene of occurrence at Exh.34, postmortem note of the deceased â€" Vipulbhai at Exh.36.",
2.4 The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record and more particularly, Panchnama at Exh.34, came to the conclusion that the driver of the",
S.T. Bus as well as deceased â€" Vipulbhai who was driving the scooter both were negligent and came to the conclusion that the deceased â€",
Vipulbhai was negligent to the extent of 10%.,
2.5 Upon considering the income and the evidence in form of the incomeÂtax statement of the year 1995Â96 Exh.39, 1995Â96 Exh.40 and 1992Â 93",
Exh.45, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/Â per month and after deduction of oneÂthird towards personal expenses,",
applied multiplier of 15 and awarded a sum of Rs.5,99,940/Â as compensation under the head of dependency benefit. Over and above the same, the",
Tribunal also awarded Rs.7,000/Â as medical reimbursement, Rs.5,000/Â towards compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering,",
Rs.15,000/Â under the head of loss of consortium charges, Rs.15,000/Â towards loss of expectation of life and Rs.5,000/Â towards funeral charges",
and thus, awarded compensation of Rs.6,46,940/Â and after deducting 10% towards negligence, as determined by the Tribunal, awarded net",
compensation of Rs.5,82,246/Â (90% of Rs.6,46,940/Â) with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization and being",
aggrieved by the same, the appellants â€" original claimants have preferred this appeal.",
Heard Ms. Aditi S. Raol, learned advocate for the appellants â€" original claimants and Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned advocate for the",
respondents. We have also perused the original record and proceedings.,
Ms. Aditi S. Raol, learned advocate for the appellants â€" original claimants has contended as under:Â",
4.1 That, the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased â€" Vipulbhai at Rs.5,000/ per month. It was contended that the accident",
was occurred in the month of February, 1995 and therefore, the Tribunal cannot brush aside the evidence in form of incomeÂtax return at Exh.45,",
which is the last incomeÂtax return of the deceased. Ms. Raol relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ofS hashikala & Ors.,
Vs. Gangalakshmamma & Anr., (2015) 9 SCC 150 ,contended that the last income should be taken into reckoning while determining the income and",
according to Ms. Raol, the income of the deceased should be determined at Rs.6,000/Â per month.",
4.2 Ms. Raol, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.",
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, contended that the Tribunal has erred in not granting benefit of prospective income to the tune of 40%. It was further",
contended that that the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs.35,000/Â under different conventional heads, which should be enhanced to",
Rs.70,000/Â.",
4.3 It was also contended that the age of the deceased â€" Vipulbhai was 25 years on the date of the accident and hence, the Tribunal has applied",
multiplier of 15 which, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and",
another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, should be enhanced to 18.",
4.4 Relying upon the FIR at Exh.32 and Panchnama at Exh.34, it was contended that the manner in which the accident has taken place and",
considering the fact that the scooter was being driven in correct side and is in moderate speed, the Tribunal has wrongly attributed 10% negligence of",
the deceased and it was contended that the accident occurred only because of the sole negligence of the driver of the S.T. Bus and hence, the driver",
of the S.T. Bus should be held to be solely negligent. On the aforesaid grounds, it was contended that the impugned judgment and award deserves to",
be modified by allowing the appeal as prayed for.,
Per contra, Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and award. It was contended that",
the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/Â per month, which does not require any alteration. It was also contended",
that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has correctly awarded compensation under other heads including the conventional,
heads, which does not require any alteration or modification. Mrs. Bhatt also relied upon the Panchnama at Exh.34 and contended that the Tribunal",
has correctly interpreted the evidence on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that the deceased â€" Vipulbhai was also negligent to the,
extent of 10% and therefore, the contention raised by the appellant on the ground of negligence deserves to be rejected outright. It was further",
contended that this Court may apply appropriate multiplier considering the date of the deceased on the date of the accident. It was, therefore,",
contended that the appeal otherwise is meritÂless and the same deserves to be dismissed.,
No other or further contentions and/or submissions are made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.,
Upon considering the submissions made and upon reappreciating the evidence on record and more particularly, FIR at Exh.32 and Panchnama at",
Exh.34, the manner in which the accident has occurred, it is evident that the S.T. Bus was being driven in wrong side. The said fact is quite evident",
from the Panchnama at Exh.34. Panchnama Exh.34 shows that the bus came in a wrong side and dashed with the scooter. Under such,
Rs.6,000/Â",Income per month
X 12,Yearly
= Rs.72,000/Â",Yearly income
+ Rs.28,800/Â",40% prospective income
= Rs.1,00,800/Â-", Total
 Rs.33,600/Â-",OneÂthird deduction towards personal expenses
= Rs.67,200/Â-",Total
X 18,Multiplier
= Rs.12,09,600/Â-",Total compensation towards loss of dependency