Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/2550/2007 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 2550 of 2007
=========================================================
KANTABEN
JAMNADAS - Appellant(s)
Versus
DALUBHAI
B.VALA & 3 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
[R
SHAKTISINH GOHIL] for
Appellant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5,1.2.6 MR AM
PAREKH for Appellant(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5,1.2.6
None for Defendant(s) : 1 - 3.
MR MAULIK J SHELAT for
Defendant(s) :
4,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 26/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
Short
facts of the case appear to be that on 21.5.1997, deceased Jamnadas
Gandalal was travelling in a Luxury Bus No.GJ-3-T-8411 and was coming
to Rajkot. At that time, when the bus reached near the Patiya of
village Mithapur on Rajkot-Ahmedabad National Highway, the bus dashed
with Truck No. KA-23-6442, the deceased sustained injuries and
thereafter succumbed to the injuries. The Claim Petition being MACP
No. 1015 of 1997 was filed for recovery of compensation of Rs.75.00
Lacs. The Tribunal, at the conclusion of the trial, awarded
compensation of Rs.5.00 Lacs with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum. It is under these circumstances that the present Appeal is
filed by the claimants for enhancement before this Court.
Heard
Mr. A.M. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
The
contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the income of
the deceased at Dubai is not taken into consideration properly by the
Tribunal. It was submitted that the income of the deceased was about
1.00 Lac Dirhams per year, whereas the Tribunal has not properly
considered the said part, therefore, there is an error committed by
the Tribunal.
Examination
of the said contention shows that the Tribunal has not believed the
evidence on the ground that no authenticated record was produced. The
contention that the Chartered Accountant was examined by stating that
the income-tax return was not required to be filed for partnership
firm, in our view, was not sufficient and the reason being that the
deceased was holding Indian passport, if the deceased had income at
the country where no income-tax liability was there, the same could
have been reflected in the Return in India, which is not there in the
present case. Under the circumstances, if the Tribunal has assessed
the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month keeping in view
the occupation of the deceased, such approach cannot be said to be
erroneous.
No other
contention is raised.
Hence,
the Appeal is meritless, therefore, dismissed.
[JAYANT
PATEL, J.]
[H.B.
ANTANI, J.]
pirzada/-
Top