FA/1339/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1339 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3402 of 2008 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 ? ========================================================= NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Appellant(s) Versus CHANDRASINH JIBHAI PARMAR & 5 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PV NANAVATI for Appellant(s) : 1,MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI for Appellant(s) : 1, None for Defendant(s) : 1 - 4. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 27/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellant-Insurance Company has, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”), called into question the amount of compensation awarded by award dated FA/1339/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT 21.09.2007 of M.A.C.T. (Auxiliary), Panchmahal in M.A.C.P. No.1219 of 2000. The facts about which there is no dispute are that, on 17.02.2002, son of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and brother of respondent Nos.3 and 4, aged 24, was serving in a quarry and while returning from the work after working overtime, he was severely injured by the vehicle insured by the appellant. The injured victim died after three months of painful and prolonged treatment and the claim petition for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- came to be filed on the basis of alleged monthly income of Rs.3500/- of the deceased. It was the case of the claimant that, besides regular wages, the claimant was proved to have been working overtime and his total monthly income was Rs.5,000/-. However, the Court considered his monthly income to be Rs.3,000/- per month and in view of the future prospect of rise in income and his status of being unmarried, two third of his income was deducted towards his own expenses so as to take the figure of Rs.1500/- as the dependency value. Applying multiplier of 15, total Rs.2,70,000/- was determined to be loss of dependency benefit for the claimants and other amounts under other heads were awarded to award total sum of Rs.3,45,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% and cost. FA/1339/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT 2. Learned counsel, relying upon recent decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Singh & Anr. V/s. Satbir Singh & Anr. [JT 2008(2) SC 33], submitted that the Tribunal had erred in applying multiplier of 15 in view of young age of the deceased and that having regard to the age of around 45 years of the parents, lower multiplier ought to have been applied for determining the amount of dependency benefit. It was, however, seen that the claimants included young sister of the deceased, aged only eight, and father of the deceased was already 48 years at the time of making the claim. The other son of the parents being also only aged 10, it could safely be presumed that the deceased son aged 24 and an educated young man working overtime in the quarry would have been the main dependable support for the whole family for a longer period, while the only other earning member, i.e. the father, would have diminishing income from his occupation as a labourer. 3. It is true that application of multiplier is not a mechanical exercise and the Court has to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of each case, particularly in cases of the claimants where their saving, other income or investment could be next to nil. In the facts of the FA/1339/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT present case, the Tribunal has awarded additional amount of loss of estate and loss of love and affection and care by way of conventional amount at the traditional rates which are not revised for long, even to take care of the inflation and the constant fall in purchasing power of money. 4. Therefore, in the facts and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, the application of multiplier of 15 is found and held to be appropriate and no other ground having been canvassed or made out for interfering with the impugned award, the appeal is summarily dismissed at the threshold with no order as to costs. The sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant shall be transmitted to the Tribunal as part payment towards liability of the appellant. Civil Application for stay does not survive and accordingly stands disposed. (D.H.WAGHELA, J.) Hitesh