KANBAI KESHA MAHESHWARI Vs. KANAIYALAL DEVJI VINZOLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this appeal is to the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Ld. M.A.C. Tribunal [Aux.II] Kutch at Bhuj [hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'] in M.A.C. Petition No. 141/1992 on 19/2/2000, whereby the Tribunal awarded in-all Rs.1,64,000/- by way of compensation to the appellants herein, who were original claimants. The original claimants felt that the amount awarded by way of compensation to them was very less and, therefore, preferred this appeal for enhancement. The appellants were original claimants and the respondents nos. 1 and 2 were original opponent nos. 1 and 2 � driver and owner of the vehicle and the respondent no. 3 herein � National Insurance Co. Ltd., was original opponent no. 3. The original opponents nos. 4 and 5 were parents of the deceased, out of which respondent no. 4 who was original opponent no. 4, came to be deleted. The respondent no. 5 herein was original opponent no. 5 before the Tribunal, who was mother of the deceased. Under such circumstances the parties to this appeal shall be hereinafter referred to as per their original status in the claim petition before the Tribunal.

(2.) THE claimants filed aforementioned claim petition to recover Rs. 4 lac by way of compensation. As per the case of the claimants, deceased who happened to be husband of the claimant no. 1 � Kanbai and father of claimants nos. 2, 3 and 4 and son of respondent no. 5 original opponent no. 5, met with a vehicular accident on 19/10/1991. According to the case of the claimants, at the time of the accident, the deceased was proceeding on his bicycle and the opponent no. 1 driver driving Tempo No. GJ-12-T- 6435 rashly and negligently came on the wrong side of the road and dashed with the bicycle of the deceased and the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. It was the case of the claimants that the vehicle in question was belonging to the original opponent no. 2 and was insured with the original opponent no. 3 Insurance Company. As per the case of the claimants, the deceased was aged about 50 years and was doing masonry work and used to earn Rs.2,000/- to Rs.2,500/- p.m.

(3.) MR. Mehul Sharad Shah, Ld. Advocate for the respondent no. 3 Insurance Company, at the outset, vehemently opposed this appeal and submitted that there is no reason whatsoever for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the Tribunal did not err in coming to the conclusion that the deceased was aged about 55 years, as the best evidence which is available to the claimants, has not been produced, namely copies of the P M Report or inquest panchnama, etc. It is, therefore, submitted that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. It is further submitted that even at the time of the accident, the children of the deceased were major and they had separate income. It is, therefore, submitted that in above view of the matter, the Tribunal did not commit any error while deducting 1/3rd amount towards self expenses of the deceased. It is further submitted that the deceased died on the spot at the time of the accident and, therefore, the Tribunal rightly did not grant any amount of the compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering.