KABHASING JESING PATEL Vs. RAVIKANT KEDRIK CHRISTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein - original claimant has preferred the present First Appeal against the judgment and award passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.811 of 2001 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahals at Godhra, which was subsequently transferred to Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dahod and new Motor Accident Claim Petition Number was given as MACP No.4134 of 2000 dtd. 30/11/2007. The claimant has filed the claim petition to get compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs from the respondents in vehicular accident, which had occured on 9/3/2001, whereby the appellant lost his father - Jesingbhai Patel. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,58,000.00 with 9% interest p.a.. Therefore, the present appeal is filed for enhancement before this Court by the appellant claimant.

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that, the deceased Jesingbhai Patel, who happened to be a father of the claimant - appellant herein, was coming towards Limkheda from Dahod in Jeep bearing registration No.GJ-17-C--1968 on 9/3/2001 and when the said Jeep reached near Sim of Village - Vateda on Dahod-Godhra road, at that time, one S.T.bus bearing registration No.GJ-18-V-7547 came from Godhra side and dashed with the Jeep and Jesingbhai has sustained serious injuries and ultimately died on the spot. The complaint was lodge with Limkheda Police Station being C.R. I No.49 of 2001 regarding such accident. The claimant has therefore filed a claim petition to get compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs before the Tribunal at Godhra, which was subsequently transferred to Dahod. Summons were issued to the respondents. Respondents No.1 and 2 had appeared through their advocate and filed written statment on 23/3/2001, where the defense of denial has been taken and all the averments made in claim petition regarding incident have been denied. The ST Corporation has denied the negligence on the part of the ST driver and has prayed for dismissal of the claim petition with cost. Respondents No.3 and 4 are served with the notices, but they have chosen not to appear before the Tribunal. Respondent No.5 - New India Assurance Co. Ltd has appeared through the advocate and had filed written statement at Exh.24, wherein the age, occupation and income of the deceased, as narrated in claim petition have been denied and also denied the involvement of the Jeep in the accident and has submitted that there was sole negligence of ST bus driver, who had lost control over the ST bus at the time of accident. Thereafter, the claimant has filed his affidavit at Exh.34 in support of his claim petition. The documentary evidence are also produced before the Tribunal, like FIR at Exh.28, Panchnama at Exh.29, Inquest Panchnama at Exh.30, Post-mortem report at Exh.31, RC book of Jeep at Exh.32, Insurance Policy of Jeep at Exh33. The Tribunal has framed the issues and has permitted the respective parties to lead the evidence and after considering the evidence, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,58,000.00 by holding opponents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable, with 9% interest p.a. as well as opponents No.3, 4 and 5 also liable and apportioned 50% liability to respondents No.1 and 2 and 50% liability to respondents No.3, 4 and 5 of Rs.1,58,000.00. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the present appeal is preferred by the original claimant - appellant herein for enhancement of the amount awarded by the Tribunal.

(3.) Learned advocate for the appellant - claimant has submitted that the amount which is awarded by the Tribunal is not just and proper and required to be enhanced as the Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased 50 years, which should be 47 years. He has also submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding multiplier 12, which should be 13 as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma versus Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, as the age of the deceased falls between 46 to 50 years. He has further submitted that in view of the decision in the case of Lata Waghwa versus State of Bihar reported in AIR 2001 SC 3218 and also decision in the case of Govind Yadav versus New India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2011) 10 SCC 683, it was held that in and around the year 2004, minimum wages payable to the worker/workman was Rs.3,000.00 and therefore, the income of the deceased, who was labourer, should be considered as Rs.3,000.00 per month and the Tribunal has considered only Rs.1,500.00 monthly income of the deceased, which is on lower side. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has not properly considered the other aspects, (i) loss of estate, which should be Rs.15,000.00 as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Shethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, (ii) funeral expenses, which should be awarded Rs.15,000.00 as per the decision of Pranay Shethi (supra) of the Hon'ble Apex Court, (iii) future loss of prospective income, which should be added at least 25% in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Shethi (supra). He has submitted that, accordingly, the Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation of Rs.2,61,000.00 to the claimant.