Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/1755/1984 3/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL NO. 1755 OF 1984
With
CROSS
OBJECTION NO. 140 OF 2006
In
FIRST
APPEAL NO. 1755 OF 1984
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG
======================================
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 ?
======================================
RANA
KISHORESINH TAKHUBHA & ORS. - Appellant(s)
Versus
KANJI
KUKA & ORS. - Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance :
Shri Mayur S.
Barot for Appellants.
None for Respondent(s)
: 1 - 2.
Shri V.C. Thomas for Respondent(s) :
3.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG
Date
: 13/07/2007
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The
appellants-claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 10th
August, 1982 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Main), Surendranagar in Claim Petition No.318 of 1981, are
before this Court with a submission that the learned Tribunal below
did not award proper amount to the claimants, therefore, the amount
deserves to be enhanced.
2. Shri
Mayur Barot, learned Counsel for the appellants, after taking me
through the entire evidence and the findings recorded by the learned
Tribunal below, submitted that the learned Tribunal was unjustified
in holding that the salary/income of the deceased was Rs.330/- per
month and further erred in holding that the deceased was only to work
for a period of five years. The learned Counsel submitted that from
the statement of the widow of the deceased, it would clearly appear
that the deceased was to work for eight years and he was also to get
increments, etc. It was also submitted that the learned Tribunal
below erred in not appreciating that had the deceased completed
further service of eight years, he could have earned bonus, gratuity
and provident fund. He submitted that the claimants are entitled to a
further sum of Rs.46,000/-.
3. Shri
V. C. Thomas, learned Counsel for respondent No.3, however, submitted
that the learned Tribunal was absolutely justified in making the
award and the award does not call for any interference.
4. So
far as the question of age of the deceased is concerned, it is to be
seen from Exh.46, certificate issued by the Works Manager of
Dhrangadhra Chemical Works where the deceased was working, that the
deceased was getting Rs.630.68 per month and that he had five years’
service to his credit from 23rd November, 1981. The
certificate has been filed by the appellants; they have consciously
relied upon the said certificate, therefore, they would not be
allowed to say anything contrary to their own document. From this
document, it would be clear that the deceased was earning Rs.630.68
per month and that he only had five years’ service to his credit.
Where a person is required to serve for a period of five years only,
then, in his case, application of the multiplier of five cannot be
said to be on lower side. The learned Tribunal was also justified in
holding that the deceased might be investing at least a sum of
Rs.230.68 per month on his own self and the dependency of the family
would be Rs.400/-. The learned Tribunal below certainly was justified
in finding the dependency to be Rs.4,800/- per year or Rs.24,000/-
with the help of the multiplier.
5. I
find no reason to interfere with the award. The appeal deserves to
and is, accordingly, dismissed.
6. As
none appears for pressing the Cross Objections, the Cross Objections
are also rejected.
[R.S.Garg,
J.]
kamlesh*
Top