Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/51/1989 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 51 of 1989
=========================================================
BIBIBEN
IBRAHIM PATEL & 4 - Appellant(s)
Versus
JARNELSING
PYARASING & 4 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MTM HAKIM for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 5.
MR SB VAKIL for Defendant(s) : 1 - 3.
NOTICE
SERVED for Defendant(s) : 4 -
5.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 17/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocate Mr. Hakim on behalf of appellants.
The
award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) at Surat, exh
67 in MACP no. 236/1985, where claim of Rs. 50,000/- made by
claimants in claim petition.
The
Tribunal has awarded Rs. 39,000/- being a compensation in favour of
claimants. The deceased Mr. Sabbirbhai died in said accident aged
about 23 years, his birth date being in 1963 as per the school
leaving certificate vide exh 34. He had already obtained learning
licence for light motor vehicle and was on way to obtain licence for
heavy vehicle. He had also got prepared passport vide exh 49 and
was searching for job opportunity abroad. Unfortunately, his career
was cut short as a result of incident. The age of father is 50
years and mother is aged about 48 years. The parents have filed
claim petition. The deceased was getting Rs. 350/- per month as per
say of claimant no. 2 – father.
Therefore,
Tribunal has examined matter on the basis of 1/3 dependency benefit
as available in case of unmarried person, which comes to Rs. 150/-
per month and on that basis annual figure comes to Rs. 1800/- to
which 15 was been applied, total of which amount comes to Rs.
27,000/- towards future economic loss. The dead body of deceased
was brought to their native place, and for that purpose they had to
spent Rs. 1500/-, which was considered to be awarded. The
conventional sum of Rs. 10,500/- for shock, suffering, loss of
expectancy of life has been awarded by Tribunal. Thus, total amount
comes to Rs. 39,000/-.
Learned
advocate Mr. Hakim raised contention before this Court that deceased
was having marriageable age. According to his father, deceased
would have married soon that facts has been admitted by his father.
Therefore, he submitted that instead of 1/3 dependency benefit,
claimants are entitled 2/3 dependency benefit and only 1/3 is to be
deducted on the salary of deceased.
He
also raised contention that future prospect of income is not taken
into account by Tribunal. Therefore, Rs. 50,000/- has been claimed
by claimants and claimants are entitled that much amount from
Tribunal. Except that no other submission is made by learned
advocate Mr. Hakim before this Court.
Learned
advocate Ms. Acharya appearing for respondent supported award passed
by claims tribunal.
I
have considered submissions made by both learned advocates.
Ultimately, this Court has to consider whatever amount as awarded by
Tribunal, whether it is just, fair and reasonable or not. I have
examined matter on all angle as contention raised by learned
advocate Mr. Hakim.
Looking
to the age of parents of deceased, 15 multiplier is not available to
claimants, then it comes to only ten multiplier not more than that.
If 1/3 is deducted being personal expenses, then it comes to Rs.
200/- per month, which makes difference of Rs. 50/- more, in monthly
dependency, but looking to the age of parents and deceased was
unmarried aged about 23 years, total claim was made for Rs.
50,000/-.
According
to my opinion, Tribunal has considered family prospect and also
future prospect income, then applied 15 multiplier which will
ultimately comes to same figure either multiplier may be reduced or
dependency benefits may be increased.
The
accident occurred on 15/9/1984 and claim petition is of 1985, at
that relevant time, Tribunal has examined issue on the basis of law,
which was applied at that time. Looking to the reasoning given by
Tribunal, according to my opinion, Tribunal has rightly awarded
compensation of Rs. 39,000/-, for that Tribunal has not committed
any error while passing such award in favour of claimants.
The
contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Hakim are examined by
this Court, if dependency benefit is increased, then multiplier is
to be reduced, which resulted into around figure, which has been
awarded by Tribunal.
Therefore,
according to my opinion, contentions raised by learned advocate Mr.
Hakim, can not be accepted and same are rejected. The Tribunal has
awarded just, proper and reasonable compensation in favour of
claimants, for that, Tribunal has not committed any error, which
would require interference by this Court.
Hence,
there is no substance in the present appeal. Accordingly, present
appeal is dismissed.
(H.K.RATHOD,
J)
asma
Top