DINESHKUMAR SHANKARLAL THAKKAR Vs. CHETANKUMAR HASMUKHLAL THAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal, under Sec. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by appellant - insurance company, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dtd. 31/8/2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Patan at Palanpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.339 of 2007, by which the Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,01,200.00 with 12% per annum interest to the claimants, by holding Opponents No.1 to 3 i.e. driver, owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle tempo liable, jointly and severally.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as under :

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Tolia appellants - claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the income of the deceased can be assessed only at Rs.3,000.00 per month, which should be considered Rs.6,000.00 per month in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Minu Rout and another versus Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and others reported in 2013(10) SCC 695. He has also submitted that the Tribunal has also erred in assessing the prospective income to the tune of 30% only, which should be 40% in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Shethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and loss of consortium should be considered as per decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati and others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 644. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/4th amount towards personal expenses of deceased, which should be 1/5th looking to the members of his family. He has also submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the contributory negligence to the extent 20% on the part of the deceased. He has submitted that multiplier should be 16 instead of 15. He has lastly submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded damage caused to the Jeep as Panchnama also indicates the same. He has submitted that this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the amount.