Present appeal arises out of the judgment and award rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in MACP No.259 of 1999 on 05/07/2005. The said claim petition was preferred by present respondents No.1 to 5 claiming compensation on account of demise of Jayrambhai Pitambarbhai Chauhan in an accident that occurred on 06/02/1999. The accident involved Truck No.GJ-18-T-256. The deceased was proceeding on bicycle at about 11:30 p.m. near Krushnnagar Four Ways cross-roads, when he was knocked down by the said truck driven by present respondent No.6. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot. He was aged 58 years and was engaged in the work of printing China Glossary. 2. The claimants, therefore, claimed an amount of Rs.4 Lacs by way of compensation under various heads available to them. Present respondent No.1 is the widow, respondents Nos.2,3 and 4 are the sons and respondent No.5 is the married daughter of the deceased –Jeyrambhai. Respondents No.6 and 7 herein chose not to contest the claim before the Tribunal. Whereas, the appellant contested the claim and filed written statement Exh.21 contending, inter-alia, that the averments and statements made in the petition regarding accident, it's time, place, manner, the age of the deceased, income of the deceased, etc., were not admitted.
3. It was contended that the accident did not occur on account of any rashness or negligence on the part of driver of the truck. It was also contended that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident.
4. Respondents No.1 and 2 herein were examined as witnesses at Exh.35 and 34 respectively. Whereas, one Sujal Dilipkumar Dave, was examined as an eye- witness at Exh.45. Documentary evidence in the form of postmortem report, death certificate, certified copy of complaint, Panchnama of place of incident, inquest Panchnama, school leaving certificate, tax bill and electricity bill of factory of the deceased were produced.
5. After considering the evidence produced on record, the Tribunal found that the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs.3,40,000/- with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the petition till its realization, with proportionate costs.
6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the insurer of the truck has preferred this appeal.
7. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Thakkar for the appellant.
8. Having been taken through the judgment and award as well as the evidence by the learned Advocate for the appellant, it is found that the deceased was aged 58 years at the time of accident and the age of the claimant No.1-widow of deceased was 52 years.
9. There is documentary evidence to show that the deceased was engaged in printing of china wear. Of course, there is no documentary evidence to support the claim of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. However, the fact that he was running a factory is brought on record. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.5,000/- per month and has thereafter deducted 1/4th amount therefrom towards expenditure on self. Assessing the dependency loss at Rs.3,750/- per month and thereafter applying a multiplier of seven years and assessing future loss of income, which would come to Rs.3,15,000/-, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- as conventional amount, totalling to Rs.3,40,000/- as compensation.
10. In this context, evidence of Jiviben is very relevant, so also, that of applicant No.2 – Anil Jayrambhai. Their affidavits would support the case of the claimant about the income of the deceased, etc. The accident occurred because of negligence on part of driver of the truck is a fact which is recorded and not controverted. The order of the Tribunal is, thus, justified and calls for no interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The appeal must fail and stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A L DAVE, J.) sompura