FA/2177/1996 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 2177 of 1996 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI : Sd/- ======================================================= 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 ? ======================================================= BHIKHABHAI SHANABHAI PAREKH - Appellant(s) Versus TARANALSINH KESARISINH & 2 - Defendant(s) ======================================================= Appearance : MR MTM HAKIM for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1, MR PR NANAVATI for Defendant(s) : 2, MR DEEPAK M SHAH for Defendant(s) : 3, ======================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 22/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, the appellant FA/2177/1996 2/5 JUDGMENT has prayed for enhancement of the compensation awarded to him by challenging the Judgment and Award dated 28.02.1985 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Bharuch in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.871 of 1986 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.95,000/-. 2. On 25.09.1985, the deceased–Bhupesh Kantilal Shah and injured–Bhikhabhai Shantilal Parekh were going on motorcycle bearing No.GAF 4143 on camp side from Rajpipla to Village Vavdi on Rajpipla-Garudeshwar road. The injured– Bhikhabhai Shanabhai Parekh was pillion rider. The deceased was driving his motorcycle in moderate speed, slowly and on his left side and when they reached near four road crossing of Vavdi village, the offending jeep bearing No.GRE 5547 came in full speed from the opposite direction, which was driven by the respondent no.1 in a very rash and negligent manner. He could not control his vehicle and dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased. Both were thrown away from the FA/2177/1996 3/5 JUDGMENT motorcycle and sustained serious injuries. The deceased died on the spot due to injuries sustained by him and the injured become unconscious and, hence, he was shifted to hospital and has been survived. The claimant filed Claim Petition No.871/1986 before the Learned MACT, Bharuch, which passed the aforesaid award. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellant has preferred this appeal so far as the compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has not properly considered the future income, future loss of income and the Tribunal ought to have granted multiplier of 20 as claimed by the appellant before the Tribunal, however, has fairly considered the actual principles on the basis of schedule under the new act. Raising the above contention, it is submitted that the claimant is entitled to multiplier of 18. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 have opposed this appeal and contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal FA/2177/1996 4/5 JUDGMENT is just, legal and the amount awarded is also just, legal and proper and, therefore, the Court should not interfere with the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 6. As far as the first contention raised by the claimant that the future income is not properly considered by the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal has relied upon the salary certificate (Mark 69/3) and came to the conclusion that the future income of the deceased would be Rs.1,500/- p.m., therefore, yearly income can be assessed Rs.18,000/- per year. In my opinion, the said assessment is just, legal and proper. 7. As far as next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal in its award in paragraph no.33 discussed that the annual loss is considered Rs.2,700/- and granted 15 multiplier to the claimant. Looking to the facts and circumstances, said multiplier is required to be increased to 18 FA/2177/1996 5/5 JUDGMENT and, hence, said amount is Rs.48,600/- (Rs.2700 x 18) on the ground of future loss of income. 8. In the aforesaid premises, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.8,100/- (Rupees Eight Thousand One Hundred Only) over and above Rs.95,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the application. The Insurance Company will pay the amount within four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. There shall be no orders as to costs. Sd/- (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) /patil