NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. VALLABHDAS MOHANLAL PALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-Insurance Company has, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act"), called into question common award dated 15. 07. 2006 of M. A. C. T. , Junagadh in Claim Case No. 666 of 1993, whereby the claimants are awarded total Rs. 3,75,000/- with cost and interest as compensation for accidental death of their young son and brother at the age of 21. The appeal was restricted to claiming reduction of the amount by Rs. 1,30,000/- out of the appellant's liability to pay Rs. 2,25,000/- with proportionate interest and cost.

(2.) LEARNED counsel Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, appearing for the appellant, vehemently argued that the claim was made under Section 166 of the Act and hence, the age of the parents was required to be considered for applying proper multiplier and two-thirds of the assumed income of the deceased was required to be deducted towards his personal expenditure on account of his being unmarried at the time of accident. He relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Gyanchand Jain and another V/s. Parmanand and others [2003 ACJ 2152], wherein age of the parents was considered for choosing appropriate multiplier, but only one-third of the income of the deceased was deducted towards personal expenses even though he was unmarried. Learned counsel Mr. Shah also submitted that the Tribunal had adopted the figure of monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- only on the basis of deposition of his father, who had admitted in his cross-examination below Exh. 36 that the deceased was in fact working in his father's own establishment and no documentary evidence had been produced either of the income of the deceased or of his father. He submitted that, in such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have presumed the value of services of the deceased at the bare minimum and determined the loss of dependency benefits on that basis. Learned counsel produced copy of the relevant evidence for perusal of the Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel Mr. Sejpal, appearing with learned advocate Mr. Anshin Desai, submitted that the Tribunal could have and ought to have applied multiplier of 17 in view of young age of the deceased, that only Rs. 10,000/- was awarded by way of loss of expectation of life and no future prospect of the deceased was considered, even as he was proved to have taken training and certificate for working as a goldsmith after his matriculation. He submitted that the list of claimants included brother and sisters of the deceased and even the parents of the claimants were aged 45 years at the relevant time. Thus, in short, he supported the impugned award and submitted that the total amount awarded to the claimants was less than reasonable and just compensation in the peculiar facts of the case.