FA/2532/2001 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 2532 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= DIVABEN WD/O KALABHAI FATABHAI THAKORE & 2 - Appellant(s) Versus DATTATREY BHAGWATRAI MODELE (DRIVER OF TRUCK NO.CII-7618) & 2 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MURALI N DEVNANI for Appellant(s) : 1 - 3. NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1, 3, UNSERVED-REFUSED (R) for Defendant(s) : 2, MR SUNIL B PARIKH for Defendant(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE Date : 16/04/2008 FA/2532/2001 2/4 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE) 1. The appellants were original claimants before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.495 of 1991. They had claimed a compensation of Rs.20 lacs for accidental death of Kalabhai Fatabhai Thakore who was working as a teacher and drawing a salary of Rs.2209/- at the time of accident which occurred on 25.1.1991 at about 4.10 p.m., involving Scooter No.GJ-7-3915 and Truck No.CII 7618. The Tribunal by judgment and award dated 9.8.2000 awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,65,820/- with 12% interest and proportionate costs which has aggrieved the original claimants and hence this appeal for enhancement. 2. We have heard learned advocate Mr.Devnani for the appellants and Mr.Parikh for the respondent. The claimants are the widow of deceased Kalabhai and two minor children. 3. According to Mr.Devnani, the Tribunal ought to have awarded a larger amount by way of compensation considering the income that the deceased would have drawn at the time of his retirement. The Tribunal ought to have adopted a higher multiplier considering the age of the deceased and, therefore, the award may be suitably modified by awarding higher compensation. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Parikh has opposed this appeal. According to him, the income that the FA/2532/2001 3/4 JUDGMENT deceased would have drawn at the time of his retirement is not a relevant consideration for assessing the prospective income or dependency loss. Under the circumstances, no interference is called for. According to Mr.Parikh, the Tribunal has already assessed the prospective income which is on higher side and no interference is called for. 5. We may record that the award is not challenged by any other party to the award. 6. It is not in dispute that the deceased was working as a teacher and was drawing a salary of Rs.2209/- at the time of the accident. It is also not in dispute that his age was 32 years. The claimants have placed on record a comparative chart to show the income that the deceased would have drawn in future till his retirement by placing the income chart of similarly situated persons. The Tribunal has assessed the prospective income of the deceased at Rs.3500/- and has deducted 1/3rd therefrom which is the dependency loss per month. The annual dependency loss, therefore, would be Rs.28020/-. The Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 16 and has assessed the dependency loss at Rs.4,48,320/-. 6.1. In our view, the Tribunal has not committed any error in not considering the income that the deceased would have drawn in future till the date of his retirement cannot be accepted in light of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in case of FA/2532/2001 4/4 JUDGMENT Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Jashuben and others [2008(2) Scale 474] where it has been held that for assessing dependency loss, the income that the deceased would have earned in future is not a relevant factor but it is permissible to take into consideration prospective rise in income if there is some basis therefor. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any error in not considering the evidence in form of the comparative table of the income of the person similarly situated to the deceased. 6.2. It is not possible for us to accept the case of the appellants that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is low. The age of the deceased was 32 and the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 16. Considering the decision in the case of Tamil Nadu State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. V/s S.Rajapriya and others, 2005 ACJ 1441, the multiplier cannot be considered to be on lower side. 7. In our opinion, therefore, no interference is called for in the judgment rendered by the Tribunal. Appeal must fail on merits. Stands dismissed with no order as to costs. ( A.L.DAVE, J ) ( SHARAD D DAVE, J ) srilatha