Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/1227/1984 1/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL NO. 1227 OF 1984
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG
======================================
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 ?
======================================
GULABBEN
WD/O. NANUBHAI BHIKHABHAI
PATEL
& ORS, - Appellant(s)
Versus
MANILAL
BACHUBHAI PATEL & ORS. - Respondent(s)
======================================Appearance
:
Shri Deep D. Vyas for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 4.
Ms. Archana Acharya for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG
Date
: 03/09/2007
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The
appellants-claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 20th
March, 1984 passed by the learned M. V. Claim Tribunal, Valsad at
Navsari in M. V. Claim Petition No.256 of 1982, are before this Court
with a submission that the learned Tribunal below erred in awarding
less compensation in view of the evidence brought on the record.
2. As
no cross appeal or cross objections has/have been filed by the other
side, this Court is not required to enter into the question of
rashness, negligence and liability of the respondents to pay the
amount.
3.
After taking me through the evidence available on the record, Shri
Deep Vyas, learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the
learned Tribunal below erred in deducting a sum of Rs.800/- from the
yearly agricultural income of Rs.2,000/- and erred in deducting a
sum of Rs.300/- from the monthly income of Rs.650/- earned by the
deceased from his factory business. According to him, when the
family consists of six persons, then, deduction of 40% to 46% under
the different heads would be on the higher side and the Court should
not lose sight of the fact that the person would not have the lion’s
share when he has to maintain the youngs in the family.
4. Ms.
Archana Acharya, learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurance
Company, on the other hand, submitted that the award made by the
learned Tribunal below is in accordance with law and does not call
for any interference.
5. So
far as the yearly income from agricultural operations, etc. is
concerned, this Court does not find any difficulty in finding that
the learned Tribunal below was justified in assessing the said
agricultural income to be Rs.2,000/- per year and in deducting an
amount of Rs.800/- out of the same under the head of personal
expenses of the deceased.
6. So
far as the income from the diamond cutting factory is concerned, the
learned Tribunal below, after holding that the monthly income could
be Rs.650/-, firstly deducted a sum of Rs.100/- under the head of
personal expenses and thereafter, again deducted a sum of Rs.200/-
under the head of personal expenses of the deceased for the articles
like food, clothes, etc.
7. In
the opinion of this Court, such double deductions were not
permissible. The deceased was required to maintain the family of six
persons (including his own self). If a sum of Rs.300/- is kept aside
for the personal expenses of the deceased and only a sum of Rs.350/-
is left for five persons, then, each of them would be getting a sum
of Rs.2.40 per day. It would be impossible for a man to survive with
an amount less than Rs.2.50 per day.
8. Taking
into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I hold that the
dependency can be well assessed at Rs.500/- per month, that is, a sum
of Rs.150/- in addition to what the learned Tribunal has already
assessed. The yearly dependency would be Rs.1,800/-. Applying the
multiplier of 15 (fifteen), as applied by the learned Tribunal below,
I hold that the appellants would be entitled to an additional amount
of Rs.27,000/-. Each of the respondents shall be held liable jointly
and severally to pay the additional amount with 6% interest per annum
from the date of the claim petition till realisation.
9. The
appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No
costs.
[R.S.Garg,
J.]
kamlesh*
Top