FA/4457/2007 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 4457 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. - Appellant(s) Versus VAJUBEN PARBAT & 3 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SANDIP C SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1, None for Defendant(s) : 1, MR CH VORA for Defendant(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3,1.2.4 RULE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1.2.5 - 3. RULE NOT RECD BACK for Defendant(s) : 4, MR DAKSHESH MEHTA for Defendant(s) : 4, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 02/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. In this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”), the insurer has called into question the amount of compensation awarded by award dated 18.10.2006 of M.A.C.T., Bhuj in M.A.C.P. No.407 of 1996. FA/4457/2007 2/4 JUDGMENT 2. There is no dispute about the facts that the deceased driver was killed in the vehicular accident at the age of 20 and his wages was claimed to be Rs.2500/- per month + Rs.50/- by way of daily allowance. As against the claim of the claimants restricted to Rs.5,00,000/-, the Tribunal was pleased to award Rs.6,34,500/- by way of compensation on the basis that the deceased would have spent only 1/3 of his income on himself and multiplier of 17 was required to be applied. It was, therefore, argued by learned counsel Mr.Sandeep Shah, appearing for the appellant, that the Tribunal had awarded excessive compensation, even in absence of concrete evidence of actual income of the deceased and without considering the age of the parents, who could be the dependents. 3. Learned counsel Mr.C.H. Vora, appearing for the original claimants, submitted that, although the calculation of compensation was fair and the shock and suffering of losing son in the prime of his youth could not be compensated in terms of money, the award was required to be suitably modified in view of the fact that, out of the parents of the deceased, the father has passed away during pendency of the claim petition itself and the mother and other claimants were required to avail of the amounts locked up in FA/4457/2007 3/4 JUDGMENT litigation. It was also fairly conceded that application of multiplier of 17 was on the higher side and could not be justified in view of the age of the claimants. 4. In view of the above submissions and fair concessions made by learned counsel, although the amount higher than the amount claimed by the claimants could have been awarded by the Tribunal in the interest of justice and, after notice to the respondents, annual dependency benefit in the facts of the present case was required to be fixed at Rs.30,000/- and, applying multiplier of 15, total loss of dependency benefit was required to be fixed at Rs.4,50,000/-. Adding thereto conventional amounts under the heads of loss to the estate, funeral and transport expenses and loss of love and care of the deceased, total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is required to be awarded by way of compensation to the original claimants. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed with the direction that the impugned award shall stand modified to the extent that the total sum of compensation of Rs.6,34,500/- shall stand substituted by the figure of Rs.5,00,000/-. Remaining part of the order regarding payment of interest and cost and investment and disbursement shall remain intact. The Tribunal shall refund the amount to the appellant to the extent it is FA/4457/2007 4/4 JUDGMENT in excess of the liability of the appellant under this order. (D.H.WAGHELA, J.) Hitesh