FA/2213/1999 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 2213 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Sd/- ======================================================= 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 ? ======================================================= LILAVATIBEN W/O MOTISINH HIMMATSINH RAVALJI & 2 - Appellant(s) Versus ANILBHAI BHIKHUBHAI PATEL & 2 - Defendant(s) ======================================================= Appearance : MR NALIN K THAKKER for Appellant(s) : 1 - 3. MR JV BHAIRAVIA for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2. MR RAJNI H MEHTA for Defendant(s) : 3, ======================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 22/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 01.01.1999 passed by the FA/2213/1999 2/6 JUDGMENT Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Valsad at Navsari (for short, “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.P. No.130 of 1990, whereby the said petition was partly allowed and the original opponents were directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,46,000/- to the original claimant along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the application till realization with proportionate costs thereon. 2. The brief facts as emerging from the record are that on 31.08.1987, the deceased-Motisinh was going from Ukai to Vansad sitting on pillion seat on scooter bearing Registration No.6755, which was driven by Anilbhai- respondent no.1 herein in a rash and negligent manner. The respondent no.1 lost his control over the scooter and dashed with stone. On account of the said accident, Motisinh expired. The heirs of the deceased filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. Ultimately, the Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award, partly allowed the said FA/2213/1999 3/6 JUDGMENT claim petition as mentioned above. Hence, the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 3. Mr.Nalin K. Thakkar, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in considering Exh.45 and 46 and failed to consider the recommendation of the 5th pay commission, which was made effective on 01.01.1997 and the Dearness Allowances at 8% at the relevant time. He has contended that in view of calculation made at Annexure-C, he would have received Dearness Allowance of Rs.5,180/- on pay of Rs.3,800/-. He has further contended that as per Annexure-A, the salary would have been in the pay scale of Rs.1,350/-, which was revised to Rs.5400-125-7000. Mr.Thakker has taken me through the calculation at page no.6 of the appeal memo and contended that the amount is required to be increased. Learned counsel, Mr.Thakkar has also relied upon the judgment reported in 2007(1) G.L.H. 667 in the case of Neetaben Hasmukhbhai FA/2213/1999 4/6 JUDGMENT Kuberbhai Chaudhary & Ors. V/s. Shakrabhai Raimalbhai Rabari & Anr. He has further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded higher amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering. He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned award of the Tribunal is required to be modified in view of aforesaid apparent errors committed by the Tribunal. 4. Mr.Mehta learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 has contended that the documents at Exh.45 and 46 produced before the Tribunal are being considered in its right perspective and future income was also taken into consideration. He has submitted that on the facts of the case, the Tribunal was justified in awarding an amount of Rs.3,46,000/- by way of compensation to the appellants and, therefore, no interference is required by this Court in this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. I have gone through the evidence and nothing FA/2213/1999 5/6 JUDGMENT has come to show that the arrears has not been paid to the original claimant till 31st August, 1987, the date on which, the accident has taken place and in that view of the matter, it will not be appropriate for this Court to allow any additional compensation. The Tribunal has considered last drawn salary of Rs.3,307/- on the basis of Exh.45 and future income of Rs.5,010/- on the basis of Exh.46 and after taking into consideration both the Exhibits, the Tribunal has considered Rs.3,000/- as dependency amount and has given multiplier of 9. In my view, the Tribunal has taken correct view on the basis of evidence, which was available on record. Keeping in mind the recent decision, it will not be appropriate to change the view taken by the Tribunal and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, legal and proper. 6. I am in complete agreement with the said conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal and, therefore, find no reason to interfere with FA/2213/1999 6/6 JUDGMENT the same. Over and above, the judgment upon which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Thakkar is not helpful to the appellant. 7. In the result, the appeal fails. It is hereby dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. Sd/- (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) /patil