KALPESHKUMAR MANILAL PATEL Vs. RASIKBHAI KALAYNBHAI CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the findings of facts of the learned Tribunal and contended that the income could have been considered to be Rs. 3000/ - and the consideration of the learned Tribunal is on the lower side considering the date of the accident.

(2.) WHILE calculating the datum figure, the learned Tribunal has added twice i.e. 1800 plus double amount which comes to Rs. 5400/= divided by two, which comes to Rs. 2700/ -. This judgment was prior to the decision in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., 2009 6 SCC 121, and 1/3 was deducted which is Rs. 1800/ -.

(3.) IF the submission of the learned advocate for the appellant is accepted, then also calculation would come to Rs. 3000/ -, out of that 1/3 would be deducted, and therefore, datum figure would be Rs. 2000/ -. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 1800/ -, and therefore, additional amount of Rs. 2000 x 12 = 24,000 x 16 = 3,84,000 would enure for the benefit of the appellant. The deceased was in rickshaw and rickshaw had turned turtled and therefore, the negligence was not attributed to the deceased, and therefore, the entire amount would go to the benefit of the heirs of the deceased. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 3,38,400/ - by way of future loss. Therefore, 3,84,000 3,45,600 = 38,400. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to additional amount of Rs. 38,400/ - with interest at the rate of Rs. 7.5.% from the date of the petition in Tribunal till reaslisation is awarded to the appellants. The appeal is allowed to that extent only.