FA/69/1990 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 69 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 ? ====================================== AYAR RUPA KARSAN AND OTHERS Versus JILUBAI W/O SALEMAMAD ABHRAM RAYMA AND OTHERS ====================================== Appearance : MR SUNIL PARIKH with MR RAJNI H MEHTA for Appellants. MR SANDEEP BHATT with MR JR SHAH for Respondent Nos.1 - 6. ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 13/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appeal under erstwhile provisions of Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is restricted to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded in MACP No.63 of 1985 which was disposed by common judgment and award in 12 claim petitions by MACT, Kachchh Bhuj. FA/69/1990 2/3 JUDGMENT 2. Admittedly, award in respect of other Claim Petitions was not challenged and in Claim Petition No.63 of 1985 also there was no controversy about the facts that the deceased driver aged 50 had died on 30th September 1984 while he was serving with Gujarat Electricity Board. Although his salary at the relevant time was Rs.1,670/- plus allowances, the pay scales were revised with effect from 1-4-1985 and if he had survived, he would have been in receipt of monthly wages exceeding Rs.5,153/- upto the age of his retirement at 60. The tribunal, however, considered and calculated the amount of dependency benefit on the basis of monthly salary of Rs.4,000/-, but applied multiplier of 10 and considered his income thereafter to be Rs.750/- upto the age of 65 years. Thus, applying multiplier of 5, additional sum of Rs.45,000/- towards dependency benefits was also awarded. 3. Learned counsel, Mr.Sunil Parikh appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the method of calculating dependency benefit was faulty and the tribunal had in the impugned award in effect applied multiplier of 15 in calculating the dependency benefit, even as the age of the deceased was 50 years at the time of the accident. 4. Learned counsel, Mr.Sandeep Bhatt appearing for the original claimant submitted that the tribunal could not have ignored actual revision in the pay scales applicable to the deceased and, in fact, his wages would have kept on rising till his retirement if he had been living and serving. He submitted that even taking Rs.5,000/- per month as the income available for the claimants, yearly dependency benefits would come to Rs.60,000/- and applying the multiplier of 8 as suggested on behalf of the appellant, the total dependency benefit would have amounted to Rs.4,80,000/-. Thus, the total compensation awarded to the claimant was on the lower side according to the submission. FA/69/1990 3/3 JUDGMENT 5. It was seen from record that the deceased victim of the accident was survived by six dependents and the youngest of them, namely, Ayub Salemamad Rayma, was only aged 9 years at the time of the accident. The calculation of dependency benefits on the usual lines hardly takes into consideration the nature of job and kind of service in which the deceased would have been engaged and the security or insecurity of the job, as also the prospects and assured progression at least in terms of monthly income. At least in the cases of Government servants and employees of the semi-government corporations there is greater job security and nearly certain rise in the wages in future. So particularly in cases like the present one when there is positive evidence of actual revision of pay scales, the Claims Tribunal would not be justified in taking as the basis figure lower than the salary which the deceased would have been entitled due to the revision of pay. 6. In the facts and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, amount of compensation awarded by the impugned award appears to be just and reasonable requiring no interference. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (D.H.Waghela, J.) /malek