FA/198/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 198 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 416 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 ? ====================================== NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Versus RAMESHCHANDRA BABULAL PATEL AND OTHERS ====================================== Appearance : MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH for Appellant. MS SHALINI S MAIR for Respondent nos.1 - 2. None for Respondent no.3. NOTICE SERVED for Respondent no.4. NOTICE UNSERVED for Respondent no.5. MS MEGHA JANI for Respondent no.6. ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 25/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellant – insurance company has, under Section 173 FA/198/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”), preferred the appeal for reducing amount of compensation and its liability imposed by the impugned award and order dated 11th September 2007 of MACT, Ahmedabad (Rural), in MACP No.576 of 1997. 2. There is no dispute about the basic facts that the deceased, aged 19, was killed in the motor accident that happened on 23-8-1996, when he was driving the car and the truck insured by the appellant dashed with it on Sarkhej Highway. Parents of the deceased victim claimed Rs.6,50,000/- as compensation on the basis of alleged monthly income of Rs.5,000/- as he was a qualified mechanic and employed. However, in absence of reliable and cogent evidence of income, the tribunal assessed income of the deceased at Rs.1,800/- per month and, having regard to the prospect of future rise in his income, determined multiplicand of Rs.21,600/-. Applying multiplier of 16, the amount of Rs.3,45,600/- was worked out and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of life were added with Rs.5,000/- under the head of funeral expenses to reach the total amount of Rs.3,80,600/-. In view of the decision on the issue of negligence, the appellant was held liable to pay 80% of the amount of compensation, and thus, the appellant was saddled with the liability of Rs.3,04,480/- with 9% interest and proportionate cost. 3. It was submitted by learned counsel, Mr.Mehul Sharad Shah appearing for the appellant that the tribunal had committed an obvious error in applying multiplier of 16 considering the age of the deceased rather than relying on the age of the claimants for the purpose. He further submitted that the assumed monthly income of the deceased was required to be further reduced by 2/3rd in view of the fact that he was unmarried. As against that learned counsel, Ms.S.S.Mair appearing for FA/198/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT the original claimants submitted that the tribunal ought to have accepted the figure of income of the deceased as claimed by the claimants and appropriate amounts under the head of loss of love, affection and care, as also under the head of pain, shock and suffering were required to be awarded. She submitted that, therefore, the claimants have already filed their appeal for enhancement of compensation. It was, however, fairly conceded by her that the multiplier was required to be suitably modified in view of age of the parents, who were aged around 50 years. It was also submitted that the deceased was the only bread-winner and the shock and suffering of the parents was such that it cannot be compensated in terms of money. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, and the parties having agreed and requested to finally dispose the appeal at the threshold in the interest of justice, the appeal is admitted and partly allowed on the following basis. 5. Since the important facts for determining the amount of compensation are not disputed and it is fairly conceded that the multiplier applied by the tribunal was required to be modified, it is held that in view of the age of the claimants, the multiplier to be applied in consonance with the Second Schedule to the Act would be 13; and applying that multiplier the total amount of compensation under the head of loss of dependency benefit would come to Rs.2,80,800/-. The multiplicand having been accepted at a very low level no further deduction towards deceased's own expenses would be justified. Having regard to the fact that the deceased had survived for few hours and breathed his last in the hospital, the claimants should be entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering of the deceased. As against total amount of Rs.35,000/- awarded by the tribunal, total sum FA/198/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT of Rs.26,700/- is required to be awarded towards shock and suffering of the claimants, loss of estate, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses to arrive at the global figure of Rs.3,12,500/-. Deducting therefrom 20% towards the liability of other respondent, total sum of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest and cost, shall be paid as compensation, jointly and severally by the appellant and respondent no.4 with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of application till realization with proportionate cost to the claimants. Since the other respondent liable to pay 20% of the total compensation have not challenged their liability under the impugned award, it shall remain unaffected. 6. The appeal accordingly stands partly allowed with no order as to cost in the appeal. Civil Application for stay does not survive and stands disposed as rejected, ad-interim relief granted therein is vacated and Notice issued therein is discharged. (D.H.Waghela, J.) /malek