1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 8th April 2011 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) and Presiding Officer, 6th FTC, Gondal, Camp Dhoraji in MACP No.1109 of 2000 whereby the claim petition came to be partly allowed and awarded a sum of Rs.3,86,000/ along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.
2.0 On 11th September 2000 one Chandulal Jivrajbhai was going as pedestrian on Jetpur Road of village Dhoraji. When he reached opposite Shiv Auto, one bullet motor cycle came and knocked him down. Chandulal sustained serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to the same. Hence the legal heirs filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation in the sum of Rs.7 lacs, whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,86,000/. It is against the said award that the present appeal has been filed.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the claimants who are the brother and sisters of the deceased cannot be dependent and therefore, the learned Tribunal ought not to have entertained the claim petition. He submitted that the income taken at Rs.3000/ per month is on higher side. He further submitted that it is open to the insurance company, as the case may be, to defeat a claim under Section 163A of the Act by pleading and establishing a 'fault' ground. He has also relied upon a decision in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sinitha and Others, reported in 2012 (2) SCC 356.
4.0 Learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that no contention with regard to dependency was raised before the Tribunal and therefore this Court may not entertain such contention.
5.0 Heard the learned Advocates for the parties at length and perused the relevant documents. As a result of this exercise it is clear that the Tribunal has elaborately dealt with the question of dependency and rightly held that all are dependents of the deceased. However, it appears that contention raised in the claim petition under Section 163A of the MV Act is rightly decided by the learned Tribunal. The appellant has not raised any specific contention with regard to the fact that the brother and sisters cannot be dependent nor such contention was dealt with by the Tribunal and therefore no such issue was framed. I am therefore in complete agreement with the findings of the Tribunal in this regard.
6.0 As regards the quantum of compensation is concerned, as per the oral evidence the monthly income was Rs.3000/. I am of the view that Rs.3000/ is reasonable amount and no interference is required. Further, the Tribunal found as under:
“Now as per second schedule appended to Sec.163A of M.V. Act 1988 for a person 30 years but not exceeding 35 years having annual income of Rs.36000/, the compensation to be awarded Rs.5,76,000/. The amount of compensation as arrived at in the case of fatal accident claims shall be reduced by 1/3 in consideration of the expenses which the deceased would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Therefore deducting 1/3 from Rs.5,76,000/, the net amount of compensation comes to Rs.3,84,000/. Over and above the said amount, the applicant is also entitled for Rs.2,000/ as funeral expenses. Thus, the applicants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,86,000/.”
7.0 I am in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
niru* (K.S.JHAVERI, J.)