FA/1077/1986 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1077 of 1986 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI =================================== 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 ? =================================== GSRTC - Appellant(s) Versus NANDUBHAI M PATEL & 5 - Defendant(s) =================================== Appearance : MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Appellant(s) : 1, MR KV SHELAT for Defendant(s) : 1 - 4. NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 5, (MR HL PATEL) for Defendant(s) : 6, =================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI FA/1077/1986 2/3 JUDGMENT Date : 09/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 9th January 1986 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol, in M.A.C. Case No.644 of 1983 whereby the claim petition was partially allowed and awarded a sum of Rs.1,33,200/- to the claimants. 2. On 1st September 1983 deceased Hemant alias Nandubhai Bandubhai and Vishnubhai were riding on a scooter on Stage Highway No.2 from Ahmedabad to Kanabha. When they reached near Singarva one S.T. Bus came on the wrong side and dashed against the front side against the scooter as a result of which Hemant and Vishnubhai fell down. Both sustained injuries and Hemant succumbed to the injuries. The legal representatives of deceased Hamant has filed the aforesaid claim petition which came to be partially allowed as stated hereinabove. 3. The main contention raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant is with regard to the multiplier. The Tribunal has taken multiplier of 20. It is argued that the multiplier should have been at FA/1077/1986 3/3 JUDGMENT the most 16. 4. There is no dispute about the income of the deceased. Looking to the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 20 is on higher side and I am of the opinion that multiplier of 18 is just and proper. 5. No other contentions are raised. 6. In the premises aforesaid the appeal is partly allowed. It is held that the claimant shall be entitled to Rs.1,03,680/ (Rs.5760 x 18 = 103680/-). Therefore the claimant is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs.2,32,680/-. The award is modified accordingly. The appellant Corporation shall be entitled to recover the excess amount of Rs.11,520/-. If the amount is in a deposit, the said amount shall be paid to the appellant Corporation. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] ar