By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellants – original claimants have challenged the judgment and order dated 2nd December 2002 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot in MAC Petition No.182 of 1993 whereby the Tribunal has partially allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants. 2 The short facts of the present appeal are that on 15th February 1993 deceased Kanabhai M Dav was travelling in the ill- fated Matador Van bearing No.GRP 3594. They were travelling from Jasdan to Rajkot. At that time, the offending bus bearing No.GJ.1.Z 1082 which was coming from opposite side, while trying to overtake another bus, dashed with the Matador Van due to which several passengers including the deceased in the present case received serious injuries. Deceased Kanabhai M Dav was removed to hospital where during the course of treatment and after a period of 10 days from the date of the accident, deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. His heirs filed the claim petition claiming the compensation of Rs.6 lakhs.
3 The claimants have contended that the deceased was earning Rs.3000 per month by selling milk and was also getting Rs.40 to Rs.50,000 per annum by doing agricultural operations. However, the Tribunal observed that as no documentary evidence was produced in support of monthly income, the income of the claimant should be considered as Rs.1000 per month. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 16 and thereby quantified the loss of dependency at Rs.1,92,000/-. The Tribunal has also awarded the following amounts:
● Pain, Shock and Suffering Rs.30,000
● Expenses on medical treatment Rs.25,500
● Funeral Charges Rs. 5,000
● Loss of dependency Rs.1,92,000 Total Rs.2,52,500
4 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the income of the appellant as Rs.1000 per month though he was earning Rs.3 thousand per month. He further submitted that the Tribunal has also erred in not considering the agricultural income..
5 However, considering the reasoning of the learned Tribunal, I am of the view that no interference is called for. Taking into consideration the disability and other factors and age factor the amount awarded is just and proper and no interference is called for. The appeal is devoid of any merits. No interference is called for. Hence, dismissed.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd