AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This First Appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act praying for modifying the judgment and order dated 31.8.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Auxi), Fast Track Court No.1, Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1229 of 1997 and prayed to award further compensation and direct the respondent to deposit the amount with interest.
It is the case of the appellant that at about 10 p.m. on 24.4.1997, Pravinbhai Somabhai Tadvi, who died in the accident, was driving his Tempo No. GJ-6-U-6800 at a normal speed and going towards Bamroli from Dabhoi.
When he was going on his side, at that time, from the opposite side, that is, from Bodeli, one dumper truck bearing Truck No. GJ-2-T- 8790, which was driven carelessly and at a full speed by opponent No. 1, was coming from the opposite direction. At the place of the incident, as the deceased had to go on the opposite side of the road and as he was waiting for the vehicle coming from the side to pass, he had kept and stopped his tempo at his side and he was waiting for turning towards the right side with his tempo. At that time, the driver of the dumper truck lost control over his truck due to rash and negligent driving and dashed his dumper with the tempo, where the deceased was standing with his tempo. Thus, the truck dumper hit the tempo from the front side and as the tempo was small in size, it was flung out at least 10 feet to the back side and the said Pravinbhai, who was driving the tempo, had sustained serious injuries and thus, a serious accident took place. The said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of opponent No. 1 and there was no fault of the deceased in it. In this regard, an offence being CR No. I-21/1997 was registered at Bodeli Police Station under the provisions of Sections 279, 304(A), 337, 338 of the IPC and Section 177 and 184 of the M.V. Act. Pravinbhai Somabhai Tadvi, who died in an accident, was driving a tempo. Apart from that, he was doing work of transportation of milk and he was receiving monthly salary of Rs. 4000/-. At the time of accident, the age of deceased Pravinbhai was 27 years of age. Applicant No.1 is the wife of the deceased. Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are
daughter and son of the deceased Pravinbhai.
Applicant No. 5 is his mother.
Heard Mr.M.T.M.Hakim, learned advocate for the appellants, Mr.V.C.Thomas, learned advocate for the respondent No.3 and Mr.Maulik J. Shelat, learned advocate for the
respondent No.5.
Mr.M.T.M.Hakim, 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 learned Tribunal has miserably erred in drawing highly unjustified and unwarranted inference from the evidence on record.
He has submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.3,97,250/- against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-. He has submitted that the learned Tribunal has seriously erred in considering the income of deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and awarding compensation under the head of future loss of income. He has submitted that learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated and considered that Alhadpura Shit Kendra had entered into contract with deceased to collect milk from several villages and deposit at their milk collection depot.
He has submitted that learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated and considered that deceased was well versed in business of transport and if his life would not have cut short due to unfortunate accident, he would have earned at least Rs.20,000/- p.m.
He has submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in awarding one third dependency to the present appellant out of income to the deceased, whereas the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded 5/6th dependency to the present appellants out of income of the deceased.
He has submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and rs.10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life. He has submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.5,000/- towards pain-shock and suffering.
He has submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in awarding interest at the rate of 7.5% only.
Lastly he has submitted that learned
Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier of 18 considering 26 years of age of the deceased at the time of accident 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.V.C.Thomas, learned advocate for the respondent No.3 has submitted that the judgment and award passed by the learned learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Auxi), Fast Track Court No.1, Vadodara, is just and proper and do not require any interference.
He submitted that the Tribunal has correctly taken the income as also applied the correct multiplier and the same requires no interference.
Mr.Maulik J. Shelat, learned advocate for
the respondent No.5 has submitted that he is only a formal party as such he has been absolved from paying the compensation.
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 18 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.3000 income + 50% = Rs.4500/- one fourth (-) deduction for personal expenses of Rs.4500 x - = Rs.3375
Rs.3375 x 12 months = Rs.40500/-
Rs.40500 x 17 (multiplier) = Rs.6,88,500/-
Rs.2500/- funeral expenses,
Rs.10,000/- loss of expectation of life,
Rs.10,000/- loss of consortium,
Rs.5,000/- pain, shock and suffering
Rs.7,16,000/- minus 30% contributory negligence Rs.2,14,800/- it comes to Rs.5,01,200/-
Rs.3,97,250/- Tribunal awarded.
Rs.1,03,950/- Total
Hence total award comes to Rs.5,01,200/-. The learned Tribunal has passed the award of Rs.3,97,250/-. From the complaint and panchnama on record it appears that tempo and the dumper dashed, there was head on collision and, therefore, learned Tribunal has considered that tempo driver was also negligent and has rightly considered contributory negligence. Therefore present appellants are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,03,950/- along with 7.5% from the date of application filed before the Tribunal. The respondent is 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.
Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.