SUSHILABEN PRAHLADBHAI PATEL Vs. RANJITBHAI GHANSHYAMBHAI THAKORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimants in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 248 of 1986, arises from the judgment and award dated 8th August, 2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad[hereinafter referred to as "The Tribunal"]. By impugned Award, the appellants-claimants have been awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.4,95,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and cost.

(2.) The appellants-claimants are the widow and the married daughters of the deceased Prahladbhai Patel. On 26th May, 1994, the said Prahladbhai Patel was travelling in a motor car bearing registration no. GJ-1-R-2555 belonging to his son-the respondent no.2 and driven by the respondent no.1 from Ahmedabad to Vadodara. At around 9.00 a.m., the driver lost control of the vehicle, the vehicle collided with a tree causing serious injuries to the passenger. The said Prahladbhai Patel died of the injuries received in the said accident. The claimants filed the above-referred Petition No. 248 of 1996 before the Tribunal for compensation in the sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-. According to the claimants, the deceased was of 59 years of age, was educated, had been a Professor and was receiving pension, had written several books and was receiving royalty, was engaged in several social activities, was Member, President etc. in several institutions, was a partner in several business firms and was receiving share from the profit. He was expected to live a long life and carry on his social and educational activities. In support of the claim, the claimant no.1-the widow, examined herself and a Chartered Accountant-one Ashokbhai Patel. The claimants also produced Income-tax returns filed by the deceased for couple of years before his death and one filed on behalf of the deceased, after his death. The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record and the evidence of the Chartered Accountant, assessed the annual loss of income on account of the death of the deceased to the extent of Rs. 1,20,000/-. From that, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd amount which the deceased would have spent on himself. The annual dependency factor has been calculated at Rs. 80,000/-. Considering the age of the deceased, a multiplier of 6 has been adopted. To the total amount of dependency factor, the Tribunal has added a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for loss of consortium and expectancy of life. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have preferred the present Appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

(3.) Mr.Shah has appeared for the appellants and assailed the judgment of the Tribunal. He has submitted that the claimants have produced the Income-tax returns of the deceased for three years in a row; Tribunal ought to have accepted the figures of income of the deceased reflected in the Income-tax returns. The Tribunal ought to have considered the increase in income in future to compute the average income of the deceased. The Tribunal failed to take into consideration the income of royalty received by the deceased. The multiplier of 6 adopted by the Tribunal is conservative and atleast the multiplier of 8 ought to have been adopted. Under the head, "loss of consortium", the widow ought to have been awarded atleast a sum of Rs. 50,000/-.