1. By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and award dated 20.12.1997 passed by the learned MAC Tribunal (Aux-IV) Kheda at Nadiad in MACP No.922 of 1990 whereby the claims Tribunal has partly allowed the claim of the appellants.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 19.5.1998, the appellant No.2 and his son Anvarhusen were standing on the Nani Khadol Patiya on road side to cross the road; at that time one Ambassador Car No.GJN 5433 came from Dador side with full speed, rashly and negligently and dashed with the boy, who sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
3. Learned counsel, Mr.Paresh M. Darji appearing on behalf of appellants submitted that claims tribunal has committed an error in not allowing the full claim as prayed for which is illegal and against the provisions of the statute. He also submitted that compensation awarded under the different heads by the claims Tribunal is on lower side. He also submitted that learned Tribunal has committed error in assessing the future economic loss considering the dependency at Rs.250/- which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. He also submitted that claims Tribunal has also erred in awarding only Rs.10,000/- for expectation of life. Under the circumstances, interference is required by this Court.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent supported the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal and submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.
5. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents on record.
6. As the deceased was a boy aged about six years, the Claims Tribunal has considered his income at Rs.750/- per month and after considering 1/3rd dependency an amount of Rs.250/- is considered as income per month. Accordingly, annual income was calculated as Rs.250/- x 12 and multiplier of 15 was applied, as the boy would have married at the age of 21 as per the directions given by the Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards expectation of life and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses and transportation charges. Accordingly, total amount of Rs.57,000/- is awarded by the Tribunal. In my view, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation as per the directions given by Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, which do not require any interference by this Court.
7. The learned advocate for the appellants could not persuade this court to take a different view of the matter. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal.
8. In the premises aforesaid I do not find any merits in the appeal. The same is therefore dismissed.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) (vipul) Top