FA/377/1990 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 377 of 1990 With CROSS OBJECTION No. 22 of 2006 In FIRST APPEAL No. 377 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= GUJ STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN - Appellant(s) Versus RAMILABEN RAMESHKUMAR THAKKAR & 7 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Appellant(s) : 1, MR SANDIP C SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1 - 4. NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 4.2.1 DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for Defendant(s) : 5, 7, MR HJ BHATT for Defendant(s) : 6, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 14/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgement and award dated 26.07.89 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxilliary), Baroda in MACP No. 36 of 1985 whereby the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 3,50,140/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum payable to the appellant by the original opponent nos. 1,2,3 & 4 jointly and/or severally. FA/377/1990 2/5 JUDGMENT 2. The appellants who are the widow, son and parents of the deceased Rameshkumar Laxmiram Thakkar had filed a claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 500000/- in respect of the vehicular accident which took place on 19.09.84 on Ahmedabad Bombay highway. The vehicles involved in the accident were an S.T bus and a truck. The bus bearing no. GRU 6056 which was driven by the original opponent no.2 and under the ownership of original opponent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the vehicle dashed with a truck bearing no. driven by original opponent no.5(who was later on deleted) and under the ownership of original opponent no.3 coming from the opposite side also in a rash and negligent manner thereby causing death of the now deceased Rameshkumar Laxmiram Thakkar. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award. 3. Mr Hardik Rawal, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the aspect of contributory negligence is not challenged in the present appeal. He has taken this court to the aspect of quantum of compensation. He has submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly considered the monthly income of the appellant. He has further contended that considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of “U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and FA/377/1990 3/5 JUDGMENT Ors. Vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors.” reported in 1996(3)GLR 136 the amount of compensation requires to be altered. 3.1 He has further submitted that the multiplier of 20 applied by the Tribunal is definitely on the higher side and that a multiplier of 15 would have been appropriate. He has also submitted that the Tribunal erred in deducting only Rs. 200/- towards personal expenses of the now deceased. 4. Mr. Sandip Shah, learned advocate appearing for the appellants in the cross objection contended that the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal has awarded the amount of compensation on the lower side. He has submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the future loss of income and even the amount paid under the head loss of expectation of life is also on lower side and therefore the award is required to be interfered qua increasing the amount of compensation. 5. Heard learned counsel and have gone through the documents placed on record including the award of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered the oral and documentary evidence in detail and has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1600/-. This Court FA/377/1990 4/5 JUDGMENT is in complete agreement with the reasonings of the Tribunal qua the income of the deceased per month. Even if the same is considered, the Tribunal ought to have taken note of the dependency factor and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of “U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra), as per which the same is to be calculated on the basis of average of double the income which comes to Rs. 2400/- in the present case. Considering the 1/3 personal expenses, the per month dependency shall come to Rs. 1600/- which in turn is Rs. 19,200/- per annum. 4.1 The Tribunal has in the present case applied the multiplier of 20 years which in my opinion is on the higher side. Looking to the age of the now deceased at the time of accident, multiplier of 16 would have been appropriate. In that view of the matter, the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 3,07,200/-(19200*16). 5. As regards the contention qua loss of expectation of life is concerned, this Court is of the view that Rs. 10,000/- is just and proper and no interference is called for. The amount of compensation thereby would be Rs. 3,17,200 (3,07,200 + Rs. 10,000). FA/377/1990 5/5 JUDGMENT 6. In the premises aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. The original claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 3,17,200/- only and the 50% of the balance amount of Rs. 32,940/- shall be paid to the appellant corporation. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. In view of the order in first appeal, the cross objection is dismissed. No order as to costs. (K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//