FA/1886/2001 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1886 of 2001 With FIRST APPEAL No. 837 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Appellant(s) Versus NIRADEVI SURENDRASING RAJPUT & 10 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS MEGHA JANI for Appellant(s) : 1, MR GG MULTANI for Defendant(s) : 1 - 6. RULE UNSERVED for Defendant(s) : 7, 10, RULE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 8 - 9, 11, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE Date : 30/04/2008 FA/1886/2001 2/6 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE) 1. These two First Appeals arise out of the judgment and award rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Court No.21 at Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 383 of 1998 on 29.11.2000. The claim arises out of the vehicular accident that occurred on 27.5.1997 at about 12.00 noon involving Truck No.GJ-3V-7367 and Truck No.GJ- 3U-5416. In the said accident, one Surendrasing Munshising Rajput who was travelling in Truck No.GJ- 3U-5416 lost his life and, therefore, his widow and three minor children and his parents preferred the said claim application claiming Rs.18,00,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal framed the issues at Exh.51 and found that accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles by the respective drivers and held all the opponents jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal considered that the deceased was aged 37 years and was earning Rs.7000/- per month as supported by oral evidence of claimant no.1 at Exh.52. The Tribunal accepted the income tax return at Exh.44 where the income of the deceased is shown as Rs.7000/- per month. The Tribunal found that the deceased had wife, three minor children and two parents to be looked after and, therefore, instead of deducting 1/3rd from the income as expenditure on self, deducted Rs.1000/- as expenditure on self out of the income of Rs.7000/- and assessed dependency FA/1886/2001 3/6 JUDGMENT loss at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month. The annual dependency loss was thus, assessed at Rs.72000/-. Considering age of the deceased, multiplier of 15 was adopted and a compensation of Rs.10,80,000/- came to be assessed under the head of dependency loss. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.10000/- towards loss of expectation of life, Rs.12000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.3500/- towards transportation, Rs.4500/- towards freight and goods totalling to Rs.11,10,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 12% on the compensation awarded with proportionate costs. 2. Both the appeals are preferred by the Insurers of vehicles involved in the accident. It is clear from para 8 of the judgment that the driver and owner of the vehicles did not remain present before the Tribunal and the permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was sought and was granted by the Tribunal by order below Exhs.39 and 53 respectively. Appeals are thus competent. 3. Upon hearing learned advocates for the appellants, it is clear that the appellants' challenge the award only on the aspect of deduction of expenditure on self by the deceased. It has been vehemently argued that out of Rs.7000/-, only Rs.1000/- is deducted by the Tribunal as expenditure on self while assessing dependency loss. The Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd from the said income. There is no challenge to any other aspect of the FA/1886/2001 4/6 JUDGMENT award of the Tribunal. 4. Reliance is placed on series of judgments of this Court as well as Apex Court to show that 1/3rd or 2/3rd is to be deducted as expenditure on self depending upon relationship of the claimants with the deceased. 4.1. This is a method of calculating dependency of the claimant. If the claimants are only parents in the case of unmarried son, deduction has to be 2/3rd and in other cases, it has to be 1/3rd. There cannot be any dispute on the said principle. It is by way of Rule of Thumb that 2/3rd or 1/3rd is deducted irrespective of number of dependents. 4.2. However, there is also a method whereby dependency is assessed by taking into consideration number of dependents so also the age of the dependents. While doing so, two units are considered in respect of major dependents and one unit for the dependents who are minor. Two units are considered for the deceased also. The income is divided by total number of units. Thereafter, value of two units is deducted as expenditure of the deceased on self and rest is taken as dependency benefit. 4.2.1. Both these methods are accepted and none can be considered as more scientific or non-scientific. 4.3. In the instant case, if Unit method is FA/1886/2001 5/6 JUDGMENT adopted, the deceased; besides himself, had a wife, three minor children and two parents. If we take two units for each major member of the family that would constitute eight units, added to that there would be three more units for the three minors and if Rs.7000/- is divided by eleven, it would fetch the amount of Rs.636/- per unit and for two units, it would fetch the amount of Rs.1272/- which will have to be deducted from the income of the deceased. Instead, the Tribunal has deducted Rs.1000/- from the income of the deceased of Rs.7000/-. The appeals, therefore, may have to be accepted to the extent of deducting further amount of Rs.272/- per month. 4.4. However, we notice that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration prospective rise in the income of the deceased and, therefore, in our opinion, in order that substantial justice is done, no interference is called for. 4.4.1. In fact, the result of the method adopted by the Tribunal for assessing the dependency loss by deducting expenditure on self is very near to the result of adopting the unit method discussed above. The unit method also cannot be considered as arbitrary or unscientific, nor can it be said that method of deducting 1/3rd or 2/3rd, as the case may be, is the only method which can be adopted by the Tribunal while assessing dependency loss. 5. As stated above, the Tribunal has deducted a FA/1886/2001 6/6 JUDGMENT figure which is very near to the figure that can be deducted if unit method is adopted. Against that, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration prospective rise in the income of the deceased. 6. In our view, for the reasons discussed hereinabove, the appeals cannot be accepted on the grounds on which the award is challenged. Since there is no other challenge, appeals must fail and they stand dismissed with no order as to costs. ( A.L.DAVE, J ) ( SHARAD D DAVE, J ) pathan