HANIFA NOORMAMAD SODHA Vs. OSMAN TAIYAB JAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of claimants in a proceeding under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and is directed against an award dated 22nd June 2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Fast Track Court, Gandhidham at Kachchh in MAC Petition No.1323 of 1999 (original No.965 of 1998) thereby awarding a sum of Rs.1,03,000/ - as compensation for the death of the victim. Being dissatisfied, the claimant has come up with the present appeal.

(2.) There is no dispute that while the victim was travelling in an auto -rickshaw, due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the said auto -rickshaw it turned turtle, resulting in serious injuries to the victim and after being treated for 11 months in hospital, ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries. Initially, the victim himself filed the claim -application thereby praying for compensation for the injury but during the pendency of such proceeding, he having died, resulting from the injuries, her heirs and legal representatives were brought on record and they proceeded with the claim -application by amending the claim - application and enhancing the amount of claim to Rs.10 lakh. The driver and the owner of the auto -rickshaw did not contest the proceeding but it was the Insurance Company, the insurer of the auto -rickshaw, who alone contested the proceeding.alive.

(3.) The Tribunal below disposed of the application by awarding Rs.1,03,000/ - under the following heads : - Rs. 50,000/ - For drugs, medicines, injections treatment, travelling expenses etc. Rs. 10,000/ - For attendant expenditure Rs. 18,000/ - For actual loss of income Rs. 20,000/ - For loss to the estate Rs. 5,000/ - For rich diet Rs.1,03,000/ - Total Mr Mankad, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants vehemently contended before this Court that the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in not at all considering loss of future income of the victim. According to Mr Mankad, the victim having undisputedly died arising out of the injuries from the accident, the Tribunal below should have followed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. According to Mr Mankad, the income of the victim should be treated to be Rs.3000/ - and the victim being aged 25 years on the basis of the said age, the appropriate multiplier should be applied after deducting one -fourth for personal expenditure in view of the fact that the victim had widow, three children and the mother alive. Mr Mazmudar, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, has on the other hand supported the award.