Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/915/2007 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 915 of 2007
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
ABDUL
MITHUBHAI MAJOTHI & 3 - Appellant(s)
Versus
IBRAHIM
HASAM & 2 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MS
SNEHA A JOSHI for
Appellant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3,1.2.4 MR DIVYESH A JOSHI for
Appellant(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1 - 3.
MR
NAGESH C SOOD for Defendant(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 30/11/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. This
appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and award passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), F.T.C. No.3, Jamnagar in
M.A.C.P. No. 1069/1998 dated 29.06.2006, whereby, the claim petition
was partly allowed and the respondents, original opponents, were
jointly and/or severally held liable to pay an amount of
Rs.1,20,500/- as compensation along with running interest @ 7.5% p.a.
from the date of application till its realization with proportionate
costs to the appellants, original claimants. The appellants have
filed the present appeal for enhancement of the amount of
compensation.
2. The
facts in brief are that deceased Aslam Abdulbhai was serving as a
Cleaner on the Truck bearing registration no. GTP-7028 owned by
respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3 herein. On
10.11.1998 the said Truck was driven by respondent no.1 herein. At a
particular place, the said vehicle was to be parked. Therefore,
deceased Aslam Abdulbhai alighted the Truck and asked respondent no.1
to drive back the Truck up to a particular distance. However, at that
time, the deceased got crushed under the vehicle and died on the
spot.
3. The
legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition before the
Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest.
The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition by passing the
impugned award. Hence, this appeal for enhancement of the amount of
compensation.
4. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The main ground on which the appellants have sought
enhancement of the amount of compensation is that the Tribunal
concerned has not calculated income under the head of future loss of
income appropriately. Before the Tribunal concerned, the appellants
had not produced any cogent evidence to show the income earned by the
deceased at the relevant time. Therefore, on the basis of the
statement on oath made by original opponent no.2 wherein he had
deposed that he used to pay Rs.5,000/- per month towards salary,
including allowances, to the deceased, the Tribunal assessed the
future loss of income on notional basis, as per second schedule of
Motor Vehicles Act, at Rs.15,000/-. The claimants had also not
produced any evidence regarding the age of the deceased. Considering
all aspects of the case, the Tribunal assessed the future loss of
dependency benefit at Rs.1,12,500/- by assessing the dependency
income at Rs.7,500/- and adopting a multiplier of 15.
5. In
my opinion, the assessment made by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable since the original claimants had not produced any cogent
evidence to prove the income and age of the deceased. I am in
complete agreement with the reasonings given by the Tribunal in the
impugned award and hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same.
6. For
the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top