FA/1775/2002 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1775 of 2002 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ================================================= 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 ? ================================================= UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD. - Appellant Versus KAMLESHBEN SURENDRASINH TOMAR & 5 - Defendants ================================================= Appearance : MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI for Appellant: NOTICE SERVED for Def endants : 1 - 4. MR AV PRAJAPATI for Defendants : 1, SERVED BY AFFIX.(N) for Defendants : 5 - 6. ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 08/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) 1. Present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the common judgment & award passed by learned MACT FA/1775/2002 2/3 JUDGMENT (Aux), Ahmedabad City, in MCAP No. 1592 of 1998 and in MACP No. 920 of 1999, dated 4th January, 2002. 2. Mr. Nanavati for the appellant Insurance Company has argued that there was no positive proof of income of the deceased which has been assessed to be Rs.3,000/- per month. There being no evidence on the income the Tribunal has wrongly assessed income of the deceased. 3. In applying multiplier of 16, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, in terms of Supreme Court decisions the Tribunal should not have awarded the claim by applying 16 multiplier. Thus the award of the Tribunal has been impugned on the aforesaid grounds. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. After arguing the matter at length for some time, counsels for the parties have agreed to a consensus that the award of the Tribunal be modified in respect of multiplier applied by the Tribunal. 5. Considering the consensus reached at by the counsels for the parties, and further considering the fact that at the time of accident took place the deceased was of the age of 33 years, we think it proper to reduce marginally the multiplier by 15 instead of 16 multiplier. 6. The appeal is partly allowed. We make no alteration or modification in the entire judgment & award of the Tribunal, except the direction to apply 15 multiplier instead of 16 multiplier applied by the Tribunal for arriving at future dependency loss. This is done by consensus. The Claims Tribunal to issue fresh order after arriving at the total amount payable by the Insurance Company accordingly. FA/1775/2002 3/3 JUDGMENT 7. It is reported at the Bar that the Insurance Company had already deposited the awarded amount, out of which 30 % amount had already been paid to the claimants. After deducting this much amount from the total amount that will be payable by the Insurance Company by applying 15 multiplier in the future loss of income, the Insurance Company is entitled to receive back the difference in the amount with proportionate cost & interest. No cost. Ordered accordingly. Record & Proceedings be sent forthwith to the Claims Tribunal. [ BHAGWATI PRASAD, J ] [ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn