1. All these three appeals arise out of common impugned judgment and award rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux), Court No.17, Ahmedabad, in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.218 of 2000 and other allied matters.
2. First Appeal No.1910 of 2004 arises out of common impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.780 of 2000, First Appeal No.4767 of 2004 arises out of common impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.209 of 2000 and First Appeal No.4768 of 2004 arises out of common impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.210 of 2000. All the aforementioned three claim petitions were involving fatal cases.
3. The Tribunal, in connection with the Motor Accident Claim Petition No.780 of 2000 awarded Rs.4 Lacs to the respondents-original claimants by way of compensation, in connection with the Motor Accident Claim Petition No.209 of 2000, awarded Rs.1,40,000/- to the respondents-original claimants by way of compensation and in connection with the Motor Accident Claim Petition No.210 of 2000, awarded Rs.1,16,000/- to the respondents-original claimants by way of compensation. In all three cases, the Tribunal directed that the claimants were entitled to simple interest at the rate of 9% per-annum from the date of filing of their respective claim petitions till realization with proportionate costs. The Tribunal directed driver, owner and Insurance Company of Luxury Bus bearing registration No.RJ.27P.3355 to satisfy the award. However, the owner and Insurance Company of Jeep bearing registration No.GJ.18A-974 came to exonerated. The appellant-United Insurance Company Ltd. viz. the Insurer of the Luxury Bus No.RJ.27P.3355 felt that the amount awarded by way of compensation to the aforementioned claimants in the aforementioned three claim petitions was on higher side, and therefore, preferred these three appeals.
4. Mr.Majmudar, learned advocate for the appellant- Insurance Company, in all these appeals, at the outset, submitted that these appeals are filed only challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the respective claimants in the aforementioned three claim petitions. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased persons on higher side, so also in awarding higher amount under different heads.
4.1 Mr.Majmudar, learned advocate for the appellant, drew my attention to Paragraph Nos.18, 19 and 21 in the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal and submitted that these appeals may be allowed.
5. Heard Mr.Bharat Jani, learned advocate for the respondents-original claimants in these three appeals, so also learned advocate Mr.Parikh for learned advocate Mr.Mehta for the respondent-Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer of the Jeep. On behalf of the respondents, it has been submitted that no interference by this Court is warranted in the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal. My attention was drawn to the copy of judgment dated 28.03.2012, passed in First Appeal No.1947 of 2005 and it was submitted that the said appeal was preferred by the appellant herein viz. United India Insurance Company Ltd. challenging the instant common judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.208 of 2000 and this Court dismissed the said appeal.
6. I have taken into consideration the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, so also impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal. Since, only contention raised in connection with these three appeals, on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company, is pertaining to the quantum of amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, it will not be necessary for this Court to examine other details.
7. In connection with Motor Accident Claim Petition No.210 of 2000, considering Para-18 in the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal observed that the deceased Kantaben was at the time of accident, aged about 58 years, her income in her capacity as rendering household services was assessed at Rs.12000/- per annum and applied multiplier of eight years. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.20,000/- as conventional amount and thus, in all Rs.1,16,000/- came to be awarded.
8. In connection with Motor Accident Claim Petition No.209 of 2000, considering Para-19 in the impugned judgment and award, it transpires that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Deceased Amrutlal was an agriculturist and his income was considered as Rs.3000/- per month and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the monthly loss to the future dependency benefits to be sustained by the dependence shall be Rs.2000/- and considering his age to be 65 years applied multiplier of five years and thus, awarded Rs.1,20,000/- under the head loss to the future dependency benefits, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.20,000/- as conventional amount and thus, awarded in all Rs.1,40,000/- by way of compensation.
9. In connection with Motor Accident Claim Petition No.780 of 2000, considering Para-21 in the impugned judgment and award, it transpires that at the time of accident and death, deceased Baldevji was aged about 29 years. Despite the fact that the claimants came with a case before the Tribunal that the deceased was a driver and his monthly income was Rs.4000/-, but the Tribunal considered his monthly income as Rs.2000/-. The enhanced prospective income was considered to be Rs.3000/- per month. Deducting his self expenses, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the monthly loss to the future dependency benefit can be assessed at Rs.2000/- and the annual loss was of Rs.24,000/- and applied multiplier of 18 years. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.20,000/- as conventional amount and in all the Tribunal awarded Rs.4 Lacs by way of compensation.
10. In above view of the matter and considering the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal, so also considering the copy of judgment dated 28.03.2012 rendered by this Court in First Appeal No.1947 of 2005, which had arisen out of the instant common judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.208 of 2000 and allied claim petitions, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal in connection with above referred three claim petitions. All these appeals, therefore, lack merits and they stand dismissed. No costs.
Girish (J.C.UPADHYAYA,J.)