KAPURIBEN NARSINHBHAI PARSOTAMBHAI SOLANKI Vs. AMARSINH HARISINH NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants have challenged the judgment dtd. 12/4/2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara in M.a.C.P. No.624 of 1995.

(2.) Advocate Mr. Adnan Khan for Mr. M.T.M. Hakim, learned advocate for the appellants, submitted that the Tribunal was required to grant prospective rise in income even in the case of deceased, who died at the age of 60, since the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 5157, has considered the suitability of the earning capacity of the person up to the age of 60, hence, 10% future prospective rise was required to be added to the calculation. Mr. Khan further stated that since claimants are four in number, the deduction was required to be 1/4th for the personal expense of the deceased.

(3.) Countering the argument, Advocate Mr. G.C. Mazmudar submitted that for a person, who died at the age of 60, the income was required to be proved and his capacity to earn more after attaining the age of 60, would have been a matter of evidence to be appreciated in the Court, and in absence of any cogent evidence on record, submitted that no prospective rise is required to be assessed. Mr. Mazmudar further stated that the judgment of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) would not have any retrospective effect on the impugned judgment which was delivered on 12/4/2007.