FA/3781/2007 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 3781 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA 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 ? 1 to 5 NO ========================================================= BHALABHAI JIVABHAI PRAJAPATI - Appellant(s) Versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. & 2 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR JB SHAH with MR VIJAY J SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1, MR VC THOMAS with MR PV NANAVATI for Respondent(s) : 1, MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI for Respondent(s) : 1, RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2, RULE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 3, (deleted) ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 15/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Respondent No.3 was permitted to be deleted in view of his having not been served and found even during the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal and the appeal having been restricted to the sole issue of enhancement of the amount of compensation. FA/3781/2007 2/4 JUDGMENT 2. The appeal, under the provisions of section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short), is preferred from the award dated 29.06.2006 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1172 of 1991. The appellant is the father of deceased victim of the accident who died on 28.6.1989 when the truck owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.1 dashed with the motorcycle driven by the deceased. The appellant made claim for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on the basis that the deceased was aged 23, holding licence to drive and owning a tractor and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. In support of the claim of income of the deceased, a witness was examined at Exh.40 who deposed that the deceased was often called by other farmers for tilling their field and he was earning Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- a month. However, the claim of monthly income was not supported by any documentary evidence. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal assumed the income of the deceased to be Rs.1,500/- per month and, deducting two-thirds on account of his being unmarried, yearly dependency benefit was taken to be Rs.6,000/- which, applying multiplier of 17, produced the figure of Rs.1,02,000/-. FA/3781/2007 3/4 JUDGMENT 3. It was submitted by learned counsel Mr.J.B.Shah, appearing with learned advocate Mr.V.J.Shah, that the basic figure adopted by the Tribunal was even less than the wages of a semi- skilled labourer and the Tribunal had failed to take into consideration the future prospects of rise in income of the deceased. He further submitted that life of a promising young man was extinguished in the prime of his youth while even the amount awarded towards loss of expectation of life was also estimated to be Rs.10,000/- only and adding thereto Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal was pleased to award total compensation of only Rs.1,17,000/- which was, ex facie, unjust and unreasonable. Learned counsel relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur and others [2003 ACJ 1800]. 4. Having regard to the fact that the deceased belonged to a family of farmers owning a tractor, which was in fact driven and deployed by the deceased, his monthly income could not have been assessed at less than Rs.2,000/- and yearly dependency benefit could have reasonably been assessed at minimum of Rs.8,000/-. Applying thereto multiplier of 15 in view of the age of FA/3781/2007 4/4 JUDGMENT the claimant, dependency benefit has to be increased by minimum of Rs.18,000/-. It was fairly conceded that, in view of recent Division Bench judgment of this Court, conventional amount has to be minimum of Rs.25,000/- and, therefore, adding Rs.15,000/- on that account, the amount of compensation has to be further increased by Rs.33,000/-. In absence of any concrete evidence of future rise in income, a lumpsum amount of Rs.17,000/- can be added under that head. Therefore, the appeal is required to be partly allowed so as to award additional compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest and proportionate cost in terms of the impugned award. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed with the direction that the total amount of compensation awarded in the impugned award shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent and the total sum of compensation of Rs.1,17,000/- shall stand increased to Rs.1,67,000/-. The additional amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid by the respondents with interest @ 10% p.m. from the date of application till the date of deposit and proportionate cost. Sd/- ( D.H.Waghela, J.) (KMG Thilake)