By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellants – original claimants has challenged the judgment and order dated 25th February 2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Sabarkantha at Himatnagar in MAC Petition No.334 of 2005 whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition. 2 The short facts of the present appeal are that on the date of the incident i.e. on 20th January 2005 in the noon at about 1.00 PM deceased was travelling in Commander Jeep bearing No.GJ.24.A 1984 from Ujanvada to Sisodara on Bhabhar-Radhanpur Road. However, due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the said jeep, said Jeep turned turtle due to which deceased Kantibhai Trikambhai had died on the spot. Therefore, his heirs filed claim petition claiming the compensation of Rs.4,84,500.
3 The claimants could not produce any evidence qua the income of the deceased in support of their say that the deceased was earning Rs.2,000 per month by doing masonry work. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000 arrived at Rs.24,000 per annum and by applying the multiplier of 6 arrived at Rs.1,44,000 out of which the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd amount towards his personal expenses. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.96,000 on the head of dependency benefit. Over and above the same, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,500 and Rs.2,000 towards loss of estate and funeral charges respectively. Thus, in all, a sum of Rs.1,00,500 was awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants. The claimants, therefore, filed the present appeal.
4 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
5. Mr Tolia, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the aspect that at the relevant point of time as per the notification issued under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, the minimum wage was Rs.100 per day and therefore the Tribunal ought to have considered the income at Rs.3,000 per month and looking to the age of the mother, the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased at Rs.216,000 and after deducting 1/3rd amount therefrom the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.1,44,000 under the head of loss of dependency. Mr Parth Tolia has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 10 SCC 683 in support of his contention.
Considering the reasoning assigned and findings arrived at by the Tribunal, I am in complete agreement with the findings of the Tribunal. In my view, Notification issued under the Payment of Wages Act cannot be made applicable to the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and the same cannot be relied upon for deciding the income of the deceased. The appeal is devoid of any merits. Hence, the same is dismissed.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd