IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 6534 of 1995 With FIRST APPEAL No. 6535 of 1995 With FIRST APPEAL No. 6536 of 1995 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
========================================================= THAKOR HIRABEN ABHESANGJI - Appellant(s) Versus KESHAVLAL MOHANLAL PRAJAPATI & 5 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance :
MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5,1.2.6 NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2,4 - 5. MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI for Defendant(s) : 3, MS MEGHA JANI for Defendant(s) : 6, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 16/01/2012
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1.0 The above appeals are directed against common judgement and award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mehsana in Motor Accident Claims Petitions No.880 of 1988, 881 of 1988 and 882 of 1982 wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.22,000/, Rs.20,120/ and 32,000/ respectively.
2.0 All the above claim petitions arose out of the same accident. The claimants were traveling in a rickshaw from Hasapur to Patan on 12.7.1988. When the rickshaw reached near Sidhpur three roads, near Patan, a jeep came from opposite direction and dashed with the rickshaw. In the said accident the claimants sustained injuries and one person has succumbed to the injuries and therefore the aforesaid claim petitions came to be filed wherein the impugned awards were passed. There appeals are filed at the stance of claimants for enhancement of compensation.
3.0 Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties at length and perused the documents on record. As a result of this exercise, in so far as First Appeal No.6534 of 1995 is concerned, the Tribunal has taken the income of Rs.1000/ per month and considered the disability by taking 5%. In this case the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the prospective income while considering the disability. On the facts and circumstances of the case, since the income is taken at Rs.1000/, the prospective income can be taken at Rs.1500/. Disability is calculated at the rate of 5%, and therefore the amount will come to Rs.75/ per month which would be Rs.900/ per annum. By applying multiplier of 15 the loss of income would be Rs.13,500/. Adding Rs.13000/ awarded under other heads, the total amount would come to Rs.26,500/. The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.22,000/. Therefore the claimant shall be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.4500/ along with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition.
3.1 Likewise in First Appeal No.6535 of 1995 the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.900/. In this case also the Tribunal has not considered the prospective income. On the facts of the case the prospective income can be taken at Rs.1350/. The disability is at 6%. 6% of Rs.1350/ would be Rs.81/ per month which would come to Rs.972/ per year. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 15. Therefore the loss of income would be Rs.14580/. By adding Rs.10400/ under other heads as awarded by the Tribunal the total amount would be Rs.24,980/. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,120/. Therefore the claimant shall be entitled to additional amount of Rs.4860/ along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application.
4.0 As regards First Appeal No.6536/1995 is concerned, the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.500/. In this case the injured has died. As regards the income is concerned, the claim was that the deceased was earning Rs.25/ per day and she was also helping in agricultural work. Having considered the evidence on record I am of the view that the just and proper income would be Rs.900/ per month. Out of this a sum of Rs.300/ is required to be deducted. Therefore the monthly income would be Rs.600/per month and Rs.7200/ per year. The Tribunal has taken multiplier of 5, but the proper multiplier would be 9 looking the age of the deceased and therefore the loss of income would be Rs.64800/ ( Rs. 7200/ x 9). A further sum can be awarded at Rs.20000/ towards pain, shock and suffering. Therefore the total amount would come to Rs.84,800/. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.32,000/. Therefore the claimant shall be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.52,800/ along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.
5.0 In the result First Appeal No.6534 of1995 is partly allowed. It is held that the claimant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.26,500/ (i.e. additional sum of Rs.4500/ along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization). The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
6.0 First Appeal No.6535 of 1995 is partly allowed. It is held that the claimant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.24,980/ (i.e. additional sum of Rs.4860/ along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization). The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
7.0 First Appeal No.6536 of 1995 is partly allowed. It is held that the claimant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.84,800 (i.e. additional sum of Rs.52800/ along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization). The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*