FA/142/1988 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 142 of 1988 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 ? ========================================================= GOVIND PUNJA HARIJAN (DELETED) - Appellant(s) Versus AHER GOVIND ALA & 5 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : None for Appellant(s) : None for Petitioner No(s).: for Appellant(s) : 1,DELETED for Appellant(s) : 1.2.1,1.2.2 MR JB DASTOOR for Appellant(s) : 1.2.3 MR RR TRIVEDI for Appellant(s) : 1.2.3 RULE SERVED BY DS for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2, 5, MR SV RAJU for Defendant(s) : 3, (MR PV NANAVATI) for Defendant(s) : 4, MR DAKSHESH MEHTA for Defendant(s) : 6, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 24/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and FA/142/1988 2/3 JUDGMENT award dated 21st November 1985 passed by Motor accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Rajkot in MACP No.297 of 1982 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.68000/- with proportionate costs and running interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realisation. 2. On 18th November 1981 vinod Govind, the son of original applicant no.1, and husband of applicant no.3 was proceeding on scooter along with two other persons, when the scooter came near crossing of the road leading to village Gomta, one truck bearing No.TGZ 8730 came from the opposite direction and dashed with the scooter. As a result of this Vinod Govind died and others sustained injuries. Legal heirs of Vinod Govind filed Motor Accident Claim Petition no.297 of 1982 which came to be partly allowed the said petition as stated hereinabove. 3. Feeling aggrieved that the compensation awarded is inadequate, the present appeal has been filed at the instance of the original claimant. 4. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.450/-, the multiplier should have been 15 and ought to have awarded Rs.5000/- towards expenses of funeral ceremony. 5. From the record it was found that Vinod Govind was serving in Jetpur Municipality and he was getting FA/142/1988 3/3 JUDGMENT Rs.8/- per day when he was attending duty as home guard and a sum of Rs.28/- per month for attending the parade. Thus the Tribunal has taken the income as Rs.500/- per month. After deducting his personal expenses at Rs.150 the Tribunal found the amount of Rs.350/- The learned Advocate for the appellant is not able to point out any other evidence to take a different view of the matter. Further, the deceased was aged 24 at the time of incident and therefore, the multiplier of 15 is just and proper. I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal and no interference is warranted in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 6. In case the amount is not withdrawn by the claimants the same will be paid to them. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company has been dismissed for want of prosecution. In case the said appeal is revived, and if the appeal is allowed, the recovery shall be made form the owner of the vehicle and not from the claimants. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] ar