FA/4835/2007 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 4835 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ================================================= 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 ? ================================================= CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Appellant Versus HIRABEN W/O RAMESHBHAI PATEL & 2 - Defendants ================================================= Appearance : MS LILU K BHAYA for Appellant : MR AV PRAJAPATI for Defendant : 1, MR PINAKIN B RAVAL for Defendant : 1, None for Defendants : 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4,1.2.5 NOTICE SERVED for Defendants : 2 - 3. ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 05/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) 1. Ms. Bhaya, Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance FA/4835/2007 2/4 JUDGMENT Company has stated that the award which was awarded by the Claims Tribunal was based on misconception on the following three grounds: (a) The age is not correctly stated on behalf of the deceased and there is no age description or proof thereof; in fact the age certificate produced shows 40 years to be the age. (b) There was no positive proof of income of the deceased which has been assessed to be Rs.5,000=00, consolidated in two parties; viz. Rs. 3500/- as agricultural income and Rs.1500/- from business income. There being no evidence on these two aspects before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has wrongly assessed income of the deceased; (c) In applying multiplier of 15, according to learned counsel for the appellant, in terms of Supreme Court decision in case of T.N. State Transport Corpn. Ltd. V. S. Rajapriya And Others, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 236; and in case of The Managing Director, TNSTC Vs. Sripriya & Ors, reported in 2007 (4) SCALE, the Tribunal should not have awarded the claim by applying 15 multiplier. Thus the award of the Tribunal has been impugned on the aforesaid three grounds. 2. The facts of the case are that the deceased Patel Rameshbhai Parsottambhai got injured on his head due to vehicular accident. Consequently he lost his vision and due to head injury subsequently he passed away after prolonged medical treatment. In this background, we examine whether the Tribunal was correct in awarding Rs.14,50,000=00, out of FA/4835/2007 3/4 JUDGMENT which Rs.4,60,000/- for medical expenses which were incurred in treating the deceased. That leaves an amount of about 9,90,000/- as the award in a case where ultimately the deceased succumbed to head injury which was sustained in the accident. Here we take note of one situation also that while awarding the amount of compensation, no future income of the deceased has been clubbed by the Tribunal. Thus in this background when we see that the deceased was of 40 years age, whether the Tribunal was right in awarding compensation by assessing age of the deceased to be 40 years. In this case the deceased had appeared in the witness box but no deposition could be made because he was not in a position to depose, hence his wife deposed on behalf of deceased/claimant. Therefore assessment of the age of the deceased was within the purview of the Tribunal and the Tribunal by virtue of its discretion could assess the age of the deceased by assessing it. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant subsequently says that the school leaving certificate shows the age of the deceased to be around 40 years. Thus what is challenged in this appeal is awarding compensation by applying multiplier of 15 which according to Ms. Bhaya should not have been applied in view of the Supreme Court decisions cited by her. We would have agreed with her that the multiplier has wrongly been applied because it should have been lesser multiplier. But in this case we find that future income has not been assessed and added to the claim. We think, if we reduce the multiplier and add future income, then, ultimately alteration in the sum would be either minimal or may not be at all. Therefore, this exercise is not undertaken by us. 4. Against this background, in the present appeal we have FA/4835/2007 4/4 JUDGMENT given our thoughtful consideration in arriving a sum by the Tribunal which is around Rs.10,00,000/- for a man who has succumbed to the injuries which he sustained in the accident. At the time of accident occurred the deceased lost his vision who was an agriculturist and also doing business in agriculture implements. Even in such a contingency when he lost his vision in the accident it par take taking away his life while he was alive. In this circumstances treating his income to be Rs.3500/- + Rs.1500/- from agricultural and business, and consolidated it to be Rs.5000/- per month by the Tribunal is correct. We were just considering that in the present circumstances Rs.5000/- per month is such an income which any person who is in working condition and has certain duties to perform would be able to earn. In the present circumstances when the deceased was occupied in agricultural operations and also doing business in agricultural implements, he would be earning Rs.5000/- per month and no inference can be taken treating the income to be on higher side. Unless very strong circumstances are made out we would be slow in disturbing the findings. On merits also this appeal does not deserve consideration, i.e. an young lady with her four children have been left high & dry with the death of her husband as a consequence of head injury sustained in the accident and after prolonged treatment, even then only Rs.9,90,000/- has been awarded as compensation. We are of the view that the award made by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is called for. Therefore the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. [ BHAGWATI PRASAD, J ] [ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn