BHAGWANJIBHAI RUDABHAI KANJIA Vs. BHIKHU BHOJA ODEDARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.2.2010 passed by the M.A.C.T. (Main), Porbandar in MCA Petition No. 91/2003. The facts of the present appeal is that the deceased Bhagvanjibhai Rudabhai Kanjia was died due to negligent driving of opponent No. 1 in the present incident, which was happened on 14.6.2003 at about 10.45am. Therefore, the present appellants have filed MAC Petition before the Tribunal, whereby, the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim of applicant No. 2 and has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,32,000/ - against the opponents No. 1 to 3 together with proportionate costs and interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization.

(2.) AS per the award, the learned Tribunal has adopted 55 years age of the deceased for the purpose of calculation of compensation. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the appellants have produced village Form No. 7 -12 & 8 -A at Ex. 26 & 27, and considering the above documents and looking to the nature of the work, the learned Tribunal adopted Rs. 3000/ - monthly income for the purpose of calculation of compensation, out of this, 1/3 deduction Rs. 1000/ - as a pocket expenses, so, Rs. 3000 - 1000 = Rs. 2000/ -. The learned Tribunal has rejected the claim of original applicant No. 2 on the ground that he is the adult son of the deceased and was not falling within the purview of dependent. The Tribunal further held that so far as dependency is only for applicant No. 1 i.e. wife of deceased and she was 50 years old, therefore, the learned Tribunal has adopted 5 multiplier. So Rs. 2000 X 12 = 24000, 24000 x 5 = 1,20,000/ -. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 10000/ - under the head of consortium and Rs. 2000/ - as a funeral procedure after the death of the deceased. So, in all, the compensation of Rs. 1,32,000/ - was awarded along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the application till its realization.

(3.) THE learned Tribunal has shown his negligence of the provisions of Sec. 166 of the M.V. Act. Section 166 of the MV Act, reads as under: