MANIBEN BHAGUBHAI PATEL Vs. SOUTH-EASTERN ROADWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal, under Sec. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant/s - original claimant/s - legal heirs of the deceased - Bhaghubhai, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dtd. 19/7/2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Mehsana in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.919 of 2003, by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,31,000.00 with 7.5% per annum interest to the claimant/s, holding liability to the container and Maruti car to the extent 70:30 respectively.

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

(3.) Learned advocate the appellant/s - claimant/s has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not properly calculating the amount of compensation. It is submitted that amount of award is on lower side as the Tribunal has not properly considered the various aspects; like income as well as prospective income of the deceased, loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate, deduction towards personal expenses, multiplier, and family circumstances, etc. At the outset, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Jasbir Kaur and Others reported in AIR 2003 SC 3696, and the decision of this Court in the cases of (i) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Karsanbhai Virjibhai Ramani reported in 2022 (0) AIJEL-HC 243606, (ii) Patel Alpaben Yogeshkumar vs. Jadeja Bhanvarsinh Umedsinh reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-HC 247154, and (iii) First Appeal No.1860 of 2016 dtd. 1/8/2024. In view of this, it is submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in considering the income of the deceased, as the deceased was doing driving and agriculture work, and thereby, earning Rs.4,000.00. Hence, monthly income of the injured Rs.4,000.00 is required to be considered. It is 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, 10% income should be added towards prospective income of the deceased. He has submitted that in view the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the Sarla Verma versus Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, multiplier should be 11. It is 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. It is further submitted that the deceased was married and therefore, he has left the dependents in the family behind him. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed error by not properly awarding compensation under the head of loss of consortium. It is submitted that under other heads except above, the Tribunal has rightly considered the amount of compensation. It is submitted that the compensation is required to be enhanced by modifying the award impugned accordingly and this appeal may be allowed.