SHAIKH RAMJUSHA IBRAHIMSHA Vs. NAMDEV RAMBHAI DHUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is given to the judgment dtd. 28/2/2005 passed by the MACT (Aux), Mehsana in MACP No.991/93.

(2.) Mr. A.R. Lakhia, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the prospective rise in income was required to be assessed and the multiplier applicable should be as per the age, where the age has been assessed as 25 by the Tribunal and thus, the multiplier should be 18 as laid down in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 and further submitted that the consortium loss is required to be granted to both the parents and widow and further stated that the amount for funeral expenses and loss to estate was required to be considered as per the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680.

(3.) Facts of the case as noted by the Tribunal is to the effect that on 11/6/1993, the son of claimant no.1 who was working with the Company of opponent no.2 was helping the operation of the crane for the road construction which was going on in Saduthala Village. The opponent no.1 was a driver who had kept the cabin door open and suddenly because of jerk in driving the crane, the deceased fell down from the crane which ran over him, which injured his body and was declared dead by Mehsana Civil Hospital.