KOLI NANUBHAI @ VIRA LUMBHA Vs. IBRHIMBHAI R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel Ms.Monali H. Bhatt having appeared for the respondents and learned counsel on both sides having agreed and requested to take up the appeal for final hearing today, it was heard in extenso and is being disposed accordingly by this Judgment.

(2.) The appellant-original claimants have challenged the award dated 27.06.2003 of M.A.C.T. (Auxiliary), Veraval in M.A.C. Petition No.592 of 1999 to claim enhanced compensation in view of tragic loss of their son in the motor accident that took place on 20.12.1992. It was submitted by learned counsel Mr.Mithani that even as the son of the appellants was killed in the prime of his youth while he was earning Rs.1500/- per month and was helpful in tilling the land which the appellants had, the dependency benefit was restricted to Rs.450/- per month and applying multiplier of 13, only an amount of Rs.70,200/- was awarded in the impugned award. He submitted that even as the Tribunal had relied upon the judgment of this Court in Somabhai Vajabhai and another V/s. Babubhai Bhailalbhai and others [1982(1)GLR 785] and considered dependency of the parents in view of the deceased son being unmarried, multiplier of 16 applied by this Court was not adopted by the Tribunal. Even second Schedule prescribed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 required application of multiplier of 16. He further submitted that in view of the rural background of the bereaved family and holding of land by the parents, the Tribunal ought to have adopted dependency benefit of more than Rs.500/- per month for the parents and also considered the increasing longevity of the rural poor. Mr. Mithani relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Urmilla Pandey V/s. Khalil Ahmad [AIR 1994 SC 2405] and Fakeerappa and another V/s. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory and others [2004 AIR SCW 7475] in that regard.

(3.) Learned counsel Ms.Monali Bhatt, appearing for the respondents, supported the impugned award with the submission that the appellants had not even claimed loss of the estate or any other benefit and the Tribunal had presumed higher income in favour of the appellants even in absence of any reliable evidence of income of the deceased. It was also submitted that, in view of uncertainty about the age of the deceased as well as the appellants, compensation awarded by the impugned award was not required to be altered.