JYOTSANABEN Vs. PAPPURAM @ BHUPSING BESIRAM YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged award dated 1.9.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Fast Track Court No.1 at Vadodara in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.95 of 2001. By consent, the appeal was heard for final disposal at the admission stage, after affording to the parties time and opportunity to collect and rely upon the relevant evidence on record.

(2.) Learned counsel Mr.M.T.M.Hakim, appearing for the appellants, submitted that learned Judge has erred in awarding Rs.3,80,000/- only against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-. He has submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was a practicing doctor and learned Judge has committed an error while considering income of the deceased at Rs.4060/- p.m. Mr.Hakim also submitted that learned Judge has erred in not considering agricultural income of the deceased, though 7 x 12 extract of land revenue records were produced on record along with income tax returns to show that deceased had earned Rs.2,40,000/- in the year 1998-1999 and Rs.2,28,800/- in 2000-2001. It is also submitted that since the deceased was aged 54 years at the time of the accident, learned Judge ought to have applied multiplier of 11 in place of multiplier of 5 while computing compensation under the head of future loss of income. In support of his submission, learned counsel Mr.Hakim has relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Gopali and ors., 2012 ACJ 2131 wherein it is held that, "it is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 36 years. Therefore, the Tribunal and the High Court were not right in applying the multiplier of 10. They should have adopted the multiplier of 15 for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation." Learned counsel further submitted that learned Judge has also erred in awarding Rs.25000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate.

(3.) Learned counsel, Mr.Anal S. Shah, appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that from the evidence of the applicants, it appears that so far as the issue regarding contributory negligence is concerned, it is not considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not considered contents of panchnama of the scene of offence and deposition of the witnesses in its true perspective. He submitted that learned Judge has wrongly considered income of the deceased. Lastly, he submitted that learned Judge has wrongly awarded the said claim amount to the applicants. However, having regard to the facts emerging from the evidence on record, the contention in respect of negligence and liability of the respondents could not be substantiated.