FA/152/1984 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 152 of 1984 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 ? ======================================================= BALDEVBHAI CHUNILAL & 2 - Appellant(s) Versus QQBHANBHAI MANSURBHAI - Defendant(s) ======================================================= Appearance : MR RAJNI H MEHTA for Appellant(s) : 1 - 3. None for Defendant(s) : 1, ======================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 09/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is directed against the judgment and award dated 21.03.1983 passed by the FA/152/1984 2/4 JUDGMENT learned Motor accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P. No.10 of 1982, whereby the Tribunal has passed the following order :- “The applicant is entitled to Rs.50,000/- with full costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation from all the three opponents who are jointly and severally liable. The opponents are directed to deposit this amount within two (2) months. On the amount being deposited, a sum of Rs.45,000/- be invested in the fixed deposit in any nationalised bank in the shape of nine fixed deposits each of Rs.5000/- for a duration of 10 years. The applicant would not be entitled to realise the amount or raise loan before the date of maturity without the permission of this Tribunal. The remaining amount be paid to this application in cash. The applicant is directed to make good the deficit court-fees within two months. The opponents are directed to bear their own costs.” 2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant- original opponents have filed present Appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 4. Main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, Rajni H. Mehta, is that the Learned Tribunal has relied upon the judgment reported in 1982(1) GLR 785 in the case of Somabhai Vajabhai & Anr. V/s. Babubhai Bhailalbhai & Ors. and has assessed Rs.600/- monthly income, however, the Tribunal has fixed the dependency benefit of the FA/152/1984 3/4 JUDGMENT applicant at Rs.200/-, thereby, Rs.2,400/- yearly. He submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not deducting amount from the personal expenses of the deceased. According to him the multiplier is on higher side. 5. As regards the contention that there was no negligence on the part of the S.T. Corporation is concerned, I am of the view that in view of the smallness of the amount, it would not be necessary to go into that question. 6. As regards the contention with regard to deduction of one-third income of the deceased is concerned, I am of the view that in view of the settled principle of law, the same is required to be accepted. The Tribunal ought to have deducted one third from the total income of the deceased. The monthly income of the deceased was taken at Rs.600/- per month which was not disputed. Therefore after deducting one third, the dependence income would come to Rs.4800/- per year. 7. The Tribunal has taken multiplier of 20. However, looking to the age of the deceased, I am of the view that multiplier of 16 would be just and FA/152/1984 4/4 JUDGMENT proper. Therefore the total dependency benefit would come to Rs.38,400/-. I am further of the opinion that the amount granted for loss of expectation of life at Rs.2,000/- is just and proper. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs.40,400/-. At the relevant the prevailing rate of interest was 6% and therefore I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 8. In the premises aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the effect that the original claimant will be entitled compensation in the sum of Rs.40,400/- instead of Rs.50,000/-. If the amount as awarded is lying in fixed deposit, the excess principal amount shall be refunded to the appellant. If the amount is withdrawn by the respondent-original applicant then, it will be open for the appellant to recover the amount. No order as to costs. Sd/- (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) /patil