Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/1479/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 1479 of 2008
=====================================================
MAHASUKHBHAI
GANDHI & 2 - Appellant(s)
Versus
MANGAJI
PUNJAI THAKORE & 2 - Defendant(s)
=====================================================
Appearance
:
MR BA SURTI for Appellant(s) :
1 - 3.
None for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2,2.2.2
MR MEHUL SHARAD
SHAH for Defendant(s) :
3,
=====================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 08/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED)
1. Heard
learned advocate Mr. B.A. Surati appearing for the appellants.
2. This
First Appeal is preferred against the judgment and award passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Ahmedabad (Rural),
Ahmedabad on 23.5.2005 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 932/1989.
3. The
facts of the present case briefly stated that on 1.2.1989, near
Ghedia Cross Lane, Sanand, Dist. Ahmedabad, son of Appellants no. 1
and 2 deceased Kamalbhai met with an accident and received serious
injuries and ultimately due to the accidental injuries, he expired.
So, present appellants have filed Claim Petition being MAC Petition
No. 932/1989 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main),
Ahmedabad (Rural) claiming compensation of Rs. 10,95,437/-. In
support of the said claim, the appellants have produced oral as well
as documentary evidence in support of the income of the deceased and
also produced FIR as well as panchnama. After considering the
submissions of both the sides, the Tribunal has passed the judgment
and award, awarding the compensation of Rs. 3,63,995/- to the present
appellants.
4. Being
aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal, the present appellants have preferred this appeal.
The learned advocate Mr B.A. Surati appearing for the appellants
contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is
illegal, improper, unjust, without jurisdiction and against the
provisions of law. It is also contended that the Tribunal has not
considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as
documentary evidence which was produced on record. It is also
contended that the judgment and award is against the principle of
natural justice and equity.
5. Mr.
B.A. Surati learned advocate appearing for the appellants has
contended that deceased Kamalbhai was born on 29.10.1961 and he
joined the business in the year 1982. He was also partner of two
firms, namely, M/s. Gandhi Plywood Agency and M/s. Mehul Plywood
(Bombay) from where his share of income was Rs. 38,000/- per annum
approximately. It is also contended that income of the deceased
Kamalbhai was not properly considered by the Tribunal. The deceased
Kamalbhai was earning Rs. 10,000/-p.m. and for the income of
deceased, income tax return for the Assessment Year 1987-88, 1988-89
and 1989-90 were also produced before the Tribunal and partner of his
business was also examined and from the oral evidence of the said
witness, it was established before the Tribunal that the income of
the deceased was required to be considered Rs. 25,000/- per month as
a prospective rise in the income of deceased Kamalbhai.
6. We
have gone through the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. It
appears from record that at the time of accident, deceased was 28
years old. It is also argued before us that as per the schedule,
multiplier of 18 is required to be given but the Tribunal has
considered the multiplier of 15. We have considered that judgment of
Apex Court in the case of (1) Oriental Insurance Company Limited
vs. Jashuben and others, reported in 2008 ACJ 1097, where
the deceased was aged 35 years and was an Assistant with ONGC and in
that case the Apex Court has adopted 10 multiplier; (2) Andhra
Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another vs. M. Ramadevi
and others, reported in 2008 ACJ 930, where the deceased
was 40 years old, the Apex Court has adopted 10 multiplier and; (3)
T.N. State Transport Corporation Limited v. S. Rajapriya and
others, reported in (2005)6 SCC 236, where the deceased
was of 38 years and the Apex Court has applied 12 multiplier. We have
also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the
Tribunal. We do not find any illegality committed by the Tribunal
while giving multiplier of 15. We have also considered the income of
the deceased and the amount awarded by the Tribunal head-wise. We do
not find that the amount awarded is illegal, improper and not as per
the provisions of law.
7. We
are unable to interfere in the findings of Tribunal as to the income
of deceased in the above circumstances.
8. In
this view of the matter, this First Appeal stands dismissed
summarily.
(J.R.
VORA, J.)
(Z.K.
SAIYED, J.)
mandora/
Top