JYOTSNABEN TULSIDAS PUROHIT Vs. PRAFULBHAI MULJIBHAI JHALA

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. 9/12/2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Junagadh in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 279 of 2010, by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,37,480.00 with 9% per annum interest to the claimants, holding Opponents i.e. driver-cum-owner and insurance company liable, jointly and severally.

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

(3.) Learned advocate for the appellant 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 pension / income of the deceased, dependents members, age of the deceased, etc. The deceased was a retired engineer and was getting monthly pension of Rs.12,205.00 per month. The Tribunal has erred in considering the monthly income of the deceased Rs.7,323.00 only, though there is documentary evidence available on record which suggests the monthly income of the deceased Rs.12,205.00. He has submitted that the deceased was doing extra work and earning more. Therefore, he has submitted that the monthly income of the deceased should be considered more. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has not properly considered multiplier which is 4, as it should be higher side and would be 9. He has further submitted that prospective income is also not properly considered by the Tribunal. He has submitted that the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd amount, which should be 1/4 th looking to the four dependents. He has further submitted that under the head of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses also, the Tribunal has not properly considered the amount as it is required to be more in view of the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of :- (i) Magma General Insurance Company Limited versus Nanu Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. (ii) National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Shethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 (iii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd., versus Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780 and (iv) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Somwati and others, reported in 2020 (9) SCC 644. Therefore, he has submitted that the amount is required to be considered by enhancing the award.