Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/301220/2010 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 3012 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
HIMBAIBEN
BACHUBHAI DEVRA & 1 - Appellant(s)
Versus
CHANDRASHEKHAR
JAGDISHPRASAD SWAMY & 2 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ADIL R MIRZA for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR AV PRAJAPATI for Defendant(s) : 1,
MR
HASMUKH THAKKER for Defendant(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 12/10/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
1. The
short facts of the case are that the deceased Balubhai Bachubhai
was coming from the office on 15.12.2003 at about 04:00 p.m. near
Bhilad Sales Tax office. At that time, one tempo No. DN-09 C-9678
came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with Balubhai who died
on the spot. The claim petition was filed for recovery of the
compensation of Rs.15 lacs. The Tribunal, at the conclusion of the
proceedings, awarded compensation of Rs.1,46,500/-. It is under these
circumstances, the present appeal before this Court.
2. We
have heard Mr. Bhatia for Mr. Mirza for the appellant.
3. The
first contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the
assessment of the income by the Tribunal is much lower and it was
also submitted that the compensation assessed for dependency benefit
is also lower and therefore, there is an error committed by the
Tribunal.
4. As
per the certificate, the income was of Rs.3,500/- per month and
therefore, if the Tribunal had assessed income at Rs.3,000/- per
month, such view cannot be said to be perverse on the face of it.
Further, it was not a case of dependency benefit claimed by the
family, but was a case where the mother of the deceased had claimed
the compensation. It is by now well settled that for the parents,
one-third dependency is to be considered and therefore, the Tribunal
calculated the dependency benefit of Rs.1,000/- per month i.e.
Rs.12,000/- per year. The age of the mother was 56 years. As such as
per the decision of the Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt) Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, if the age
is 56 to 60 years, the multiplier should have been 9. As against the
same, the Tribunal has awarded multiplier of 11 years which is
slightly on the higher side. Therefore, the aspect of prospective
income, even if to be considered, is sufficiently taken care of.
Under these circumstances, it appears to us that it cannot be said
that the Tribunal has taken any perverse view on the basis of the
evidence available on record. Hence, the contention cannot be
accepted.
5. In
view of the above, the appeal is meritless and therefore, dismissed.
[JAYANT
PATEL, J.]
[H.B.ANTANI,
J.]
mrpandya
Top