[1] By way of these appeals, the appellant – Insurance Company has challenged the impugned judgment and award dated 11.05.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Surendrnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.722/1994 to 725/1994.
[2] The brief facts of the present appeals are that on 08.05.1994, the deceased as well as injured were travelling in Car bearing No.GJ- 12-9918 from Vadala to Valsad. The said car was being driven by deceased Chhaganlal. When the said car reached Mithapur Village, the said car was given a dash by offending truck bearing No.GJ-35- 1415, which was being driven rashly and negligently and on its wrong side. In the said accident some claimants had died and some claimants had sustained serious injuries and hence, they have filed claim petitions for different compensation before the Tribunal.
[3] M.A.C.P. No.722 of 1994 is filed by the owner of the aforesaid car claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for damage caused to the car. Considering the evidence produced on record, the Tribunal awarded Rs.60,743/- for damage caused to the car.
M.A.C.P. No.723 of 1994 is filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Chhaganlal who was driving the car at the relevant point of time claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
The Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased Chhaganlal at Rs.4,500/- p.m and deducted 1/5 therefrom towards personal expenses and arrived at Rs.3,600/- p.m. to be the monthly dependency. He then applied multiplier of 15 and awarded Rs.6,48,000 under the head of loss of dependency. Over and above, the Tribunal has also awarded Rs.90,000/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral charges and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation. Thus, in all Rs.7,48,000/- is awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants in M.A.C.P. No.723 of 1994.
M.A.C.P. No.724 of 1994 is filed by the injured Maniben claiming compensation of Rs.25,000/-. After considering the evidence produced on record, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.22,500/- as compensation to the claimant.
M.A.C.P. No.725 of 1994 is filed has been filed by the injured Geetaben who has received serious injuries on head, chest and vital part of the bodies. She has filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Considering the evidence, the Tribunal has assessed permanent partial disability at 20%. The Tribunal has considered income at Rs.2,400/- p.m. Therefore, the Tribunal assessed Rs.480/- to be monthly loss of income. Looking to the age of the injured, the Tribunal adopted multiplier of 17 and awarded Rs.97,920/- under the head of loss of income. Over and above, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards attendance charges, transportation and special diet. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering and Rs.1,000/- towards actual loss of income. The Tribunal awarded in all Rs.1,38,920/-.
Hence the present appeals are filed by the Insurance Company.
[3] Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the accident took place in the year 1994. He submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs.60,743/- as damages to the car. He submitted that the learned Tribunal has not considered that the Ambassador car was of 1969 model. It has been brought on record that the owner of the car purchased the car in 1992 for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- and according to him the car has been totally destroyed. He sold the salvage and received Rs.10,000/-. He submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly evaluated the value of the car. The panchnama recorded that the value of the car was Rs.60,000/- and the learned Tribunal considering it as gospel truth, awarded the said amount. He submitted that the car was of 1969 model and in the year 1994 there was so-many models of improved versions of the cars available in the market and it is well known fact that the value of Ambassador car of 1969 model cannot be more than Rs.30,000/-. Under the circumstances, considering the general market in car where there would be no buyer of 1969 model car, the value of Ambassador car could not be more than Rs.30,000/-. He submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding interest at the rate of 9%. He has relied upon the case of Dr.Urmila J. Sangani Vs. Pragjibhai Mohanlal Luvana, reported in 2000 ACJ 1125 to contend that the Tribunal cannot award more than claim amount. He submitted that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. He, therefore, urged that the appeals are required to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside.
[4] Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed an error in awarding compensation. He, therefore, urged that the appeals are required to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order is required to be confirmed.
[5] Heard learned advocates for respective parties and also considered the submissions, evidence on record and the decisions of the Apex Court.
[6] As far as First Appeal No.3263 of 2005 [arising out M.A.C.P. No.722 of 1994] is concerned, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the value of the ambassador car cannot be more than Rs.30,000/- and there is no expert evidence produced on record. The Tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs.60,743/- towards the compensation which is on higher side and it should not be more than Rs.30,000/-. Therefore, there is an excess amount of Rs.30,743/- which is required to be refunded to the appellant – Insurance Company along with interest and costs.
[7] As far as First Appeal No.3264 of 2005 [arising out M.A.C.P. No.723 of 1994] is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.7,48,000/- to the claimants. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr.Urmila J. Sangani Vs. Pragjibhai Mohanlal Luvana, reported in 2000 ACJ 1125, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded compensation more than claim amount. The claim of the claimants in the claim petition is Rs.5,00,000/-. In spite the same, the Tribunal has erroneously awarded Rs.7,48,000/-. Therefore, there is an excess amount of Rs.2,48,000/- which is required to be refunded to the appellant – Insurance Company along with interest and costs.
[8] As far as First Appeal No.3265 of 2005 [arising out M.A.C.P. No.724 of 1994] is concerned, the challenge in the appeal is Rs.10,000/-. It has been the consistent practice of this High Court not to enter into the merits of those appeals wherein the claim in appeal is a petty claim, and claims up to Rs.25,000/- have been quantified by this Court as petty claims. No question of law or principle is urged. This appeal is, therefore, summarily dismissed on the ground that it represents a petty claim, without entering into the merits of the matter.
[9] As far as First Appeal No.3266 of 2005 [arising out M.A.C.P. No.725 of 1994] is concerned, the Tribunal though assessed the monthly loss of income at Rs.4,080/- has adopted the multiplier of 17 and thereby awarded Rs.97,920/-. In view of the decision of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the claimant is entitled for multiplier of 16 considering her age of 32 years. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to get Rs.92,160/- under the head of future economic loss, whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs.97,920/-. Therefore, there is an excess amount of Rs.5,760/- which is required to be refunded to the appellant – Insurance Company along with interest and costs.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. The appeals, except First Appeal No.3265 of 2005, are allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) vijay