By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellants – original claimant has challenged the judgment and order dated 31st March 2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main),. Bhavnagar in MAC Petition No.228 of 2003 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,20,500 to the claimants as against their claim of Rs.4,90,000. 2 The short facts of the present appeal are that on 22.2.2003 at about 9.30 PM deceased Kalubhai was travelling in a truck bearing No.GRX 5245 as Reliever Driver and they were going from Kovaya to Vadodara after loading cement from L&T Company in the said truck. When the said Truck reached a place between Adhelai and Velavadar, due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 herein said truck turned turtle as a result of which deceased – Kalubhai buried under cement bags and died on the spot. His parents, therefore, filed claim petition claiming the compensation of Rs.4,90,000.
3 The learned Judge of the Tribunal has observed in paragraphs 10 and 11 as under:
“10. .... Now so far as the occupation and income of the deceased is concerned, the petitioner has come forward with a case that deceased was a driver, earing Rs.3500/- p.m. In Certificate Mark 15/1, Opponent No.2 has stated that deceased was driving his truck since long. This fact is contradicted with the contents of FIR wherein it has been stated that deceased was driving the said truck since last 15 days as reliever; meaning thereby that deceased was not a regular driver. If at all, the deceased was a driver, as is contended by the petitioner, the driving license of deceased could have been produced on record. In absence of driving licence of deceased to drive a heavy goods vehicle, it is difficult to believe that deceased was working as a driver of offending truck. If the deceased was a driver, he would be sitting in the cabin of the truck and his dead body would not have been found buried beneath the cement bags. All these facts clearly lead us to believe that deceased might have been travelling in the offending truck as a cleaner and not as a driver. This inference gets strength from the affidavit of petitioner filed at Exh.22 wherein he has stated that deceased was travelling in offending truck as spare driver cum cleaner. The petitioner's case is two-fold so far as the occupation of deceased is concerned. Some times he says that the deceased was a driver and some times he says that deceased was a spare-driver-cum-cleaner. In the background of the facts discussed above, in absence of driving licence of deceased it cannot be believed that he was working as a driver. However, it may be believed that he might be working in the said truck as a cleaner. When the occupation of deceased is not believed, his income of Rs.3500 per month as Driver can also not be believed. However, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, income of deceased can be assessed at Rs.1500 p.m. as Cleaner, which would be Rs.18,000 per annum.
11. As dicussed earlier, the age of deceased Kalubhai was about 28 years on the date of accident. Second Schedule of the M.T. Act, multplier of 18 has been provided for the age group of 25 to 30 years. If the yearly income of Rs.18,000 is multiplied by multiplier of 18, the total figure would come to Rs.3,24,000. As per the note below the 2nd Schedule of the M.V. Act, the amount of compensation so arrived at is required to be reduced by 1/3rd (I.e. Rs.1,08,000) in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Therefore, Rs.1,08,000 is required to be deducted from Rs.3,24,000/-. Therefore, the amount of compensation would come to Rs.2,16,000. In addition to this, Rs.2,000 towards funeral expenses and Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate are also payable to the petitioners. Thus, the total compensation payable would be as under:
Rs.2,16,000/- Loss of Dependency Rs. 2,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 2,500/- Loss of Estate ========= Rs.2,20,500”
Considering the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal, the same is just and proper and no interference is called for. The appeal has no merits and therefore the same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd