PRAKASHBHAI LAXMANBHAI MOR Vs. JAGDISHBHAI ARJANBHAI GONDALIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and award dtd. 14/10/2016 passed by the MACT (Aux), Gondal in MACP No.3 of 2009, the appellants - claimants have prayed for enhancement of the award amount on the ground that the deceased was aged about 18 years and at the time of his death, he was employed at Mahindra Gears and Transmission Pvt. Ltd. and was drawing salary of Rs.3,652.00 per month. Considering the evidence of the Company, the ground has been raised that in future he would become entitle to salary of Rs.14,000.00 per month and the prayer is made for 100% rise instead of 50% granted by the Tribunal. Mr. Sheth has relied upon the decisions in the cases of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, Ramilaben Chinubhai Parmar and Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company and Ors., (2014) 15 SCC 722 and Sureshchandra Bagmal Doshi and Anr. Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Ors., (2018) 15 SCC 649 to contend that on the death at an early age with the prospect of promotion and potential earning capacity of the deceased, the Tribunal should have granted higher level than the standard percentage as laid down in the subsequent judgments and thus, Mr. Sheth submits that in consonance with the evidence of Rohitbhai Chauhan who was examined by the claimants, had very consistently stated that new employee appointed in place of the deceased was getting salary of Rs.14,000.00 and on that basis, Mr. Sheth submits that 100% rise in income ought to have been granted in the present matter.

(2.) Referring to Paragraphs 12 to 15 of the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), Mr. Sheth submits that if the salary of the deceased was considered when the family of the deceased is large and dependents of the deceased are the younger siblings and aged parents and therefore, Mr. Sheth submits that instead of one-half deduction as unmarried person, the Court ought to have deducted one-third as personal expenses and the contribution of the deceased to the family should have been considered as two- third.

(3.) Countering the arguments, Mr. Maulik J. Shelat has referred to the observations made by the Division Bench in First Appeal no.2372 of 2014 dtd. 17/7/2018 to submit that the Division Bench has made elaborate observation to the submissions so made in that referred case of the deceased young man having exceptional academic qualification and has urged that he has the potential of higher earning. Mr. Sheth submits that while disallowing the contention raised, Division Bench has followed the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 to consider the scope and future rise in income. Mr. Shelat has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Yashodharaben Vinubhai Patel Vs. Dulabhai Bhikhabhai Mer and Ors., 2016 (2) GLR 1221, wherein such contention of deviating from the standard adopted in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) was put forward to consider 100% prospective rise in income.