FA/4066/2007 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 4066 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 ========================================================= DHANESINH JUJARSINH SISODIYA & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus RANCHHODBHAI VIRABHAI BHARWAD & 2 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR JV JAPEE for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH for Respondent(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 21/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellants, parents of the deceased victim of the accident, have preferred the appeal FA/4066/2007 2/5 JUDGMENT under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the impugned award dated 01.09.2005 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.518 of 1991. 2. There is no dispute about the facts that the deceased was aged 22 years when, on 15.09.1997, the tanker dashed from behind with the cycle on which the deceased and his brother were riding. The deceased was employed as a trainee in weaving department of a mill at daily wages of Rs.40/-. He was claimed to be earning additional Rs.1,800/- per month out of tuitions. However, the Tribunal accepted the figure of Rs.1,500/- as his monthly income and deducting therefrom two-thirds on account of his being unmarried, assessed yearly loss to the parents at Rs.6,000/- and applying multiplier of 14, awarded Rs.84,000/-. To that were added Rs.16,000/- towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and transportation charges, and total sum of rupees one lakh is awarded by way of compensation. 3. It was argued by learned counsel for the appellant that additional income of the deceased and his promising career as a trained employee in weaving department of a mill ought to have been considered by the Tribunal for assessing the FA/4066/2007 3/5 JUDGMENT future rise in his income; and higher multiplier ought to have been applied in view of the deceased having been survived by his brother, although he was not joined as a claimant. It was also pointed out that, even without proving negligence of anyone, the appellants could have been awarded much higher amount if the claim petition were filed under the provisions of section 163-A of the Act. As against that, learned counsel Mr.Vikky Mehta, appearing with learned counsel Mr.M.S.Shah for the insurer, submitted that there was no evidence of additional income earned by the deceased by way of tuition fees and his employment was also of a temporary nature. He further submitted that the deceased was survived by his parents, who were aged 44 and 42, on the basis of which the multiplier could have been determined. He further submitted that deduction of two-thirds of the amount of compensation was proper in view of the status of the deceased as an unmarried person. 4. In view of the limited controversy regarding quantum of compensation and even disregarding the claim of additional income of the deceased, it was clear from the record that the deceased was aged 22 years and earning Rs.1,200/- per month. It is well-settled by several Division Bench decisions of this Court FA/4066/2007 4/5 JUDGMENT that, in absence of any reliable evidence in respect of future rise in income, the income has to be doubled and added to the current income and then reduced to half to arrive at the figure of future loss of income. On that basis, future monthly loss of income, in the facts of the present case, would be Rs.1,800/- and yearly loss of dependency benefit would come to Rs.21,600/-. Even applying the multiplier of 16 to that, it produced the figure of Rs.3,45,600/- which, in the facts of the present case, ought to be reduced to half to arrive at the figure of Rs.1,72,800/-, being the loss of dependency benefit for the small family of parents and brother who survived the deceased. Adding thereto Rs.77,200/- towards loss to the estate, loss of expectation of life and loss of love and affection, the figure of Rs.2,50,000/- would be reached. Having regard to the fact that the accident had happened about a decade ago, there is constant erosion in the value of money and the parents had suffered shock and grief of losing their educated son in the prime of his youth, additional compensation of Rs.50,000/- on that count should be paid to the claimants. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent that the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded as compensation shall stand substituted by the award of FA/4066/2007 5/5 JUDGMENT Rs.3,00,000/- with interest and cost as per the impugned award. The appeal stands allowed accordingly with cost. Sd/- ( D.H.Waghela, J.) (KMG Thilake)