Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/124/1983 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 124 of 1983
=========================================================
RANKUNVERBA
RATANSINH & 4 - Appellant(s)
Versus
GATUBHAI
RUKHADBHAI,DRIVER & 1 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
UNSERVED-EXPIRED
(N) for Appellant(s)
: 1,MR PREMAL S RACHH for Appellant(s) : 2 - 3, 5,NOTICE SERVED for
Appellant(s) : 4,
NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1,
MR MD
PANDYA for Defendant(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 12/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rachh for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.M.D.Pandya for respondent ? Corporation.
2. In the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the award passed by MAC Tribunal, Jamnagar dated 12.10.1981 in MACP No.88 o f1981 whereby the claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.32,172/- with 6% interest.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Rachh submitted that the claims Tribunal has awarded a less compensation or compensation on lower side and not applied proper multiplier looking to the age of deceased as 60 years and the claims Tribunal has also committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased also considered the annual loss which would come to Rs.246/-. Accordingly, the compensation has been worked out on the basis of applying multiplier of 7. Therefore, the claims Tribunal has committed gross error in awarding the compensation. Therefore, present appeal is filed.
4. I have considered the contention raised by learned advocate Mr.Rachh and perused the award passed by the claims Tribunal. The claims Tribunal has considered while examining the Issue No.3 in Para.12 that deceased was aged about 60 years. The deceased was getting pension of Rs.110/- per month and after the death of deceased, family pension amount is not available to the claimants because pension was available to the deceased upto life time. Therefore, that aspect has been taken into account by the claims Tribunal and thereafter, the claims Tribunal has considered the evidence of Narpatsinh H. Jadeja at Exh.23 as deceased was working as a Watchman with Jamnadas Madhavji & Co. receiving Rs.300/- per month and for that, vide Exh.24 and Exh.25 salary slips were produced. Thereafter, the claims Tribunal has considered Rs.110/- the pension amount, total comes to Rs.410/- and looking to the personal expenses of Rs.110/-, Rs.300/- has been dependency worked out, total comes to Rs.3600/- and multiplier of 7 applied and thereafter, conventional compensation of Rs.5000/- for loss expectation of life, total comes to Rs.32,172/-.
5. The contention raised by learned advocate Mr.Rachh cannot be accepted in light of the facts which are almost undisputed between the parties. A person who died at the age of 60 years, multiplier of 7 has been rightly applied by the claims Tribunal which cannot be more than that and rightly income has been taken into account including the pension amount and also considered the contribution of Rs.20.50/-in the GPF scheme and said amount was also paid by the employers to the deceased.
6. Therefore, according to my opinion, the claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the income and rightly deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses and looking to the age of deceased as 60 years, multiplier of 7 has been rightly applied. Therefore, according to my opinion, no case is made out for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the claims Tribunal. The claims Tribunal has rightly examined the matter and awarded the reasonable compensation to the deceased, who was aged about 60 years. Therefore, the contentions raised by learned advocate Mr.Rachh cannot be accepted and are rejected. Therefore, there is no substance in the present appeal. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed.
(H.K.RATHOD,J.)
(vipul)
Top