SANGITABEN BHASKARBHAI PATEL Vs. VIMAL PURSHOTTAM PANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First Appeal No.1478 of 2015 is by the widow and two daughters - original claimants - appellants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased - Bhaskarbhai Patel, under Sec. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and award dtd. 29/11/2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 953 of 2006, by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. .006,58,400.00 with 9% per annum interest to the claimants, holding Opponents i.e. 1 and 2 i.e. driver-cum-owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle liable, jointly and severally.

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

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi 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 of award is on lower side as the Tribunal has not properly considered the various aspects; like income of the deceased, negligence, liability and family circumstances, etc. He has submitted that the deceased was doing farming work in his own land as well as in the lands of his brothers, who are serving outside the village and was also doing the farming work by taking the land on lease and thereby earning Rs. .0080,000.00 per annum. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered the same and awarded compensation accordingly. 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, more income should be added towards prospective income of the deceased. He has further submitted that the deceased was married and he has left three dependents in the family behind him. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed error by not properly awarding compensation under the head of loss of consortium. Further, he has submitted that the Tribunal has not properly deducted the amount towards personal expenses. He has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error by not properly applying the multiplier, which should be more keeping in view the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the Sarla Verma versus Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 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 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) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Somwati and others , reported in 2020 (9) SCC 644 and (iii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd., versus Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780. He has submitted that the compensation is required to be enhanced by modifying the award impugned accordingly and this appeal may be allowed.