1 By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant – insurance company has challenged the judgment and order dated 4th October 1997 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Vadodara MAC Petition No.1221 of 1991 whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant.
2 The short facts of the present appeal are that on the date of the incident i.e. on 24th February 1991 the deceased – Maheshbhai Varma was going on his bicycle to the residence of one Natubhai Bariya for attending Chaul Karma of his son. When the deceased reached near village Amaliyara, at that time, a truck bearing No.GJ.17.T.3964 came there from behind and dashed with the deceased due to which deceased received serious injuries and died subsequently. The claimants filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.8 lakhs.
3 The deceased was aged about 30 years and was serving as Helper in Sayaji Iron Works and was getting monthly income of Rs.2,000/-. The Tribunal considering the oral as well as documentary evidence considered the monthly income of Rs.2200 per month out of which deducted Rs.700 towards his personal expenditure. The Tribunal has therefore considered Rs.1500 to be the monthly dependency and Rs.18000 to be annual dependency. Looking to the age of the deceased the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 15 and arrived at Rs.2,70,000 under the head of loss of dependency benefit. He has also awarded Rs.20,000 towards loss of expectation of life and Rs.10,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000 towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all, Rs.3,02,000 was awarded to the claimants.
4 Learned counsel for the appellant disputed the involvement of the truck in question. She has relied upon the documents at Exhibit 44 and 46 which were produced along with the paper book. In the octroi slip the time was mentioned as 22.00 hours and the accident is alleged to have taken place at 22.10 hours and it could not have been possible for the truck to reach the accident place. However, taking into consideration the distance between the place of the accident and the octroi naka, it is possible to cover the distance in 10 minutes. In that view of the matter, the contention raised by the appellant for insurance company is misconceived. Nothing is produced to take a contrary view. Considering the reasoning of the learned Tribunal, I am of the view that no interference is called for. The appeal is devoid of any merits. No interference is called for. Hence, dismissed.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd