Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
========================================================= ISHA JUSAB SODHA & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus AYUB HASAM SANDHI (DELETED) & 3 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance :
MR AR SHAIKH for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.
DELETED for Defendant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Defendant(s) : 2 - 3. MS HINA DESAI for Defendant(s) :
4, ========================================================= CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 24/01/2012 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT
1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 02.12.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main] Jamnagar, in M.A.C.P. No. 256 of 1989 and M.A.C.P. No. 4 of 1990, whereby the claim petitions were partly allowed and the original claimants of M.A.C.P. NO. 256 of 1989 were awarded total compensation of Rs. 60,000/- and the original claimants of M.A.C.P. No. 4 of 1990 were awarded total compensation of Rs. 63,000/- together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization and proportionate costs.
2. 01.04.1989 at around 1130 hours, due to turtling of a Truck bearing registration no. GTP 5310 near Village Amran, son of appellant in M.A.C.P. No. 256/1989 expired and the appellant of M.A.C.P. No. 4/1990 sustained severe bodily injuries. The legal heirs of the deceased and injured person filed claim petitions, which came to be partly allowed, by way of the impugned award. The appellants herein, have filed the present appeals for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
3. So far as First Appeal No. 1298 of 1997 is concerned, the same is filed by the father of the deceased. In view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein it is held that father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent. Hence, on this ground alone, First Appeal No. 1298/1997 is not entertained.
4. So far as First Appeal No. 1299 of 1997 is concerned, the main ground under which the appellant has prayed for enhancement of the amount of compensation is that though the Tribunal has believed the monthly income at Rs.750/- and the disability at 25% for the body as a whole, it has not taken into consideration the future loss of income while calculating the amount of compensation.
5. Having gone through the impugned award, I find substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellant since the Tribunal has not calculated income under the head of future loss while calculating the amount of compensation. By adopting the principle of doubling the income and then taking its average, as laid down by the Apex Court in its recent decision, the income would come to Rs.1125/- per month. 25% of the said amount comes to Rs.281.25. Therefore, the annual income would be Rs.3375/- [281.25 x 12]. Instead of 15, the multiplier would be 14 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr, reported in (2009) 6 S.C.C.
121. Hence, the total income would come to (3375 x 14) Rs.47,250/-. However, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.36,000/- under the said head. Therefore, the claimant shall be entitled for an additional amount of Rs.11,250/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum instead of 12% as awarded by the Tribunal.
6. For the foregoing reasons, First Appeal No. 1298 of 1997 is dismissed. So far as First Appeal No. 1299 of 1997 is concerned, the same is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant, original claimant, shall be entitled for an additional amount of Rs.11,250/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and proportionate costs thereon. Rest of the impugned award remains unaltered. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/