BAI VANA Vs. PAVANSINGH HARISINGH CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the original claimants. One Gumabhai met with an automobile accident on February 1, 1978 and the dependents of the deceased Gumabhai filed claim petition being Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 36 of 1978 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahals at Godhra and Claimed Rs. 75,000/- as compensation from the respondents herein, i.e. driver, owner and the Insurance Company. The Tribunal after recording evidence and after hearing and parties, came to the conclusion that the applicants-claimants were entitled in all to Rs. 12,000/-that is to say, Rs. 5,000/- on the count of pain, shock and suffering and Rs. 7,000/- on the count of loss of expectation of life. The tribunal did not award any amount whatsoever for the future economic loss sustiained by the applicants-claimants. Being aggrieved by the judgment and awiard passed by the tribunal, the applicants-claimants have preferred this appeal.

(2.) IT is argued that there was dispute with regard to the age of the deceased. According to the appellant-claimants, the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of death. However, the tribunal has come to the conclusion that he must be aged about 47 years at the time of his death. Even if this finding is not disturbed, it cannot be said that the appellants were not entitled to any amount towards the future economic loss. It is in evidence that the deceased had agricultural lands and he was doing agricultural work and maintaining the family. It appears that the deceased Was the main earning member of the family and the claimants are his widow, and other minor children. Even if the manual labour and his experience and skill by which he was managing his land which was to the extent of about 5 acres, are taken into consideration, his net contribution per year would be Rs. 2,000/-. Incidentally, this finding is given by the tribunal also in para 16 of the award. If this much is considered to be the contribution towards the maintenance of the family and getting the agricultural produce every year, there is no reason why compensation for future economic loss should not be awarded to the appellants-claimants. On this basis, applying the multiplier of 12, the appel lants would be entitled to claim Rs. 24,000/- as and by way of compensation for the future economic loss.

(3.) IN above view of the matter, the appellants-claimants would be entitled to receive compensation as follows: