FA/1882/1990 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1882 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= G S R T C - Appellant(s) Versus SHANTABEN P. CHAUHAN & 3 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MD PANDYA for Appellant(s) : 1, MR RR MARSHALL for Defendant(s) : 1 - 3. NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 4, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 21/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”), the appellant-G.S.R.T.C. has called into question award dated 26.03.1990 of M.A.C.T. (Main), Surat in M.A.C.P. No.616 of 1987, whereunder the heirs of the deceased victim were FA/1882/1990 2/3 JUDGMENT awarded Rs.1,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and cost. There was no dispute about the fact that on 04.09.1987, at about 10:15 a.m., the bus of the appellant knocked the deceased victim while he was standing opposite the Railway Station and he succumbed to the injuries by 3:15 pm. Till the widow of the deceased was examined in Court, the appellant had not filed even its written statement. It was, however, the defence of the appellant that the deceased was injured even as he suddenly crossed the road. There was sufficient evidence to indicate that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the appellant. 2. Learned counsel Ms.Desai, appearing for the appellant, vehemently argued that even as the deceased was aged 47 years and serving as a peon at the salary of Rs.1251/-, the Tribunal had erred in applying multiplier of 15 for arriving at the figure of Rs.1,62,000/- towards dependency benefit. The other amounts of Rs.2,000/- towards expenses and funeral rites and Rs.16,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering and loss of expectation of life were not challenged. Learned counsel Mr.R.R. Marshall, appearing for original claimants, submitted that the Tribunal was justified in applying higher multiplier in view of the permanent Government service in which the FA/1882/1990 3/3 JUDGMENT deceased was employed as a peon. He also submitted that the Tribunal had completely disregarded the assured future rise in his income and his prospect of serving till reaching the age of superannuation at 60; and even receiving pension thereafter. 3. Apart from the factors considered by the Tribunal in the impugned award, it could be successfully argued for the appellant, relying upon recent judgment of the Supreme Court in The Managing Director, TNSTC V/s. Sripriya & Ors. [2007(4)SCALE 222], that lower multiplier was required to be applied in view of the age of the deceased. However, even a conservative calculation of assured future rise in the income of the deceased would more than offset the amount required to be reduced by applying lower multiplier of 12 or 13, as suggested by learned counsel. In any case, 18 years have passed since the award and the total amount of compensation clearly appears to be just in retrospect. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (D.H.WAGHELA, J.) Hitesh