Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/3679/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 3679 of 2010
======================================
SAVITABEN
TULSIBHAI ZALA & OTHERS
Versus
LALUJI
KHODAJI VANZARA & OTHERS
======================================
Appearance :
MR.HIREN
M MODI for Appellants
None for Defendant(s) : 1 -
3.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 15/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
This
appeal is filed by the widow, two children and parents of one
Tulsibhai Udesinh Zala who died on 28.10.2008 while he was riding on
his motorcycle and was given a dash by the offending vehicle, Truck
bearing Registration No. GJ-9-Y-8280, which was coming in rash and
negligent manner. Deceased Tulsibhai Udesinh Zala died on the spot.
The claimants, therefore, filed the claim petition before the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kheada and Nadiad and prayed for
compensation of Rs.4,84,700/- on the basis that deceased was aged
about 29 years old and engaged in cattle and agricultural work and
was earning Rs.3,300 per month.
The
learned Member of the Tribunal after considering the evidence on
record came to the conclusion that the prospective monthly income of
the deceased was Rs.1,500 and after deducting 1/3rd amount
towards personal expenses determined family dependency at Rs.1,000
per month and Rs.12,000/- per year. Since the deceased was 27 years
old, the Tribunal adopted multiplier of 18 and awarded Rs.2,16,000/-
under the head of loss of contribution to the family.
Feeling
aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellants –
original claimants have filed this appeal.
Mr
Modi, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned
Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the agricultural
income of the deceased. He has also relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar
& Anr. Reported in II
(2008) ACC 364 SC to contend that the notional income of the deceased
should have been held to be Rs.3,000 per month.
In
my view, the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is just and proper.
The learned Member of the Tribunal has mentioned that there is no
clear evidence in so far as agricultural income is concerned looking
to the revenue record which is produced vide Mark 5/10 to 5/10.
In
view of the aforesaid, no interference is called for. The appeal
has no merits. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
(K.S.Jhaveri,
J.)
*mohd
Top