VASUBEN Vs. MAHADEVA AALABHAI HUBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal, under Sec. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant - Insurance Company, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and award dtd. 7/7/2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Kachchh at Bhuj in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 439 of 2005, by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,500.00 with 7.5% per annum interest to the claimants, holding Opponents i.e. 1 to 3 i.e. driver, owner and insurance company of the truck liable, jointly and severally. The Tribunal has exonerated opponents No.4 to 6 from the liability.

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

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Ruturaj Vyas for learned advocate Mr. Rahul Dave for the appellants - claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not properly calculating the amount of compensation. He has submitted that amount awarded is on lower side as the Tribunal has not properly considered the various aspects; like income of the deceased, negligence and injuries, etc. He has submitted that the deceased was having number of cattle and earning Rs.5,000.00 per month. However, he has fairly submitted that looking to the deposition of Chhanga Kana Arjan, the Secretary of Shri Radhe-Krishna Milk Producer Committee, Ratnal at Exh.44, the income of the deceased was Rs.3,600.00 at that point of time. He has further submitted that looking to the age of the deceased and keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Shethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% income should be added towards prospective income of the deceased. He has submitted that the Tribunal has committed gross error by not considering the entire medical bills produced on record by the claimants. He has submitted that the Tribunal has also erred in considering the fact that the deceased was hospitalised for about 12 days and therefore, the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering, which is ultimately resulted into fatal. He has further submitted that the deceased was married and therefore, he has left the dependents in the family behind him. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed error by not properly awarding compensation under the head of loss of consortium. He has also submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error by awarding meager compensation under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, which should be more in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma versus Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Further, he has submitted that the Tribunal has deducted 1/3 amount towards personal expenses, which should be 1/4th looking to the age of the deceased. He has fairly submitted that the Tribunal has applied 15 multiplier which is just and proper. He has submitted that the compensation is required to be enhanced by modifying the award impugned accordingly.