FA/2210/1993 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 2210 of 1993 With FIRST APPEAL No. 2816 of 1993 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant(s) Versus CHANCHALBEN WD/O.CHHOTALAL BHIMRAJ SHAH & 5 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HEMANT S SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1, None for Defendant(s) : 1 - 5. MS SONAL D VYAS for Defendant(s) : 6, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 18/01/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0 The above appeals are directed at the instance of appellant as FA/2210/1993 2/4 JUDGMENT well as the claimants against the judgement and award dated 31.03.1993 passed by learned Motor accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Ahmedabad ( Rural) at Mirzapur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No 283 of 1984 wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,82,000/- . 2.0 The accident occurred on 09.02.1984 at 12.40 p.m on the National Highway No. 8, near village Jetelpur. The vehicles involved in the accident were the S.T. Bus driven by opponent No.1 and truck No. GRR 8444 driven by opponent No. 3 and insured with United India Insurance Company. Ashokkumar Chootalal Shah was travelling in the S.T. Bus as passenger who died in the accident. The widow of the deceased and legal heirs filed the Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 283 of 1984 whereby the Tribunal has passed the aforesaid award which is challenged in the present appeal. 3.0 Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in considering the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month without any documentary evidence on record; that the learned Tribunal has erred in applying 7 years multiplier for the purpose of dependency loss for a deceased who was aged 62 years on the date of accident. 4.0 Learned advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed grave error in believing the income FA/2210/1993 3/4 JUDGMENT of the deceased at Rs. 2500/- only; that the learned Tribunal should have believed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4000/- or Rs. 4500/- per month. 5.0 Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6.0 As regards income of the deceased is concerned, it is stated by the deceased before the death that his net income was Rs. 75, 000/- per year while the income of the deceased is stated to be Rs. 5000/- per month in Exh. 1. It is also admitted by the deceased at Exh. 223 before the death, that he was having land and he was keeping 20 to 25 persons for work and now they are keeping 10 to 15 persons for labour work. The learned Tribunal after considering in detail has assessed the income at Rs.2500/- per month. After deducting the amount of Rs. 500/- for personal expenses the net amount would come to Rs.2000/-. Therefore, the dependency loss was considered at Rs. 24000/- per year. The learned Tribunal has applied multiplier 7, which is just and proper according to the age, and thus the amount would come to Rs.1,68, 000/- ( Rs.24,000 x 7). Nothing is pointed to show that the said calculation is unreasonable. The Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for loss of expectation of life and Rs. 4000/- for funeral and other expenses which are also just and proper. FA/2210/1993 4/4 JUDGMENT 7.0 The appellant as well as claimants could not persuade this court to take a different view of the matter. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal. 8.0 In the premises aforesaid I do not find any merits in the appeals. The same are therefore dismissed. (K.S. JHAVERI, J.) niru*