HIRABEN GOVINDBHAI PATEL Vs. SURENDRASINH DILIPSINH RAUOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short) challenging the judgement and award dated 31st July, 2003 rendered in M.A.C.P. No.565 of 1999 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Ahmedabad ("the Tribunal" for short), by which the claim petition filed under Section 66 of the Act by the appellant -claimant to recover the compensation is partly allowed.

(2.) THE facts of the case in briefly stated are that on 17th July, 1999, the deceased Jayeshbhai Govindbhai Patel was traveling as a pillion rider on a scooter bearing Registration No. GJ -1 -AH -2803 and when they reached near Dadabhai Navroji Hall, Shahibaugh Police Station, Ahmedabad, one jeep bearing Registration No. GJ -2 -7469 came from the opposite direction and lost the control and took it on the wrong side and dashed with the scooter, resulting in the accident, in which the deceased pillion rider suffered serious injuries and was ultimately taken to the hospital wherein he was treated as an indoor patient, but, after the treatment for about fourteen months, he succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the claimant, mother of the deceased, claimed the compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/ - and averred that the deceased was the only breadwinner of the family and at the time of the accident, he was working as a Manager in M/s. Deep Marketing and was earning Rs.8,000/ - per month. Moreover, he was also doing agricultural operations at Village: Shertha and his monthly income was Rs.15,000/ -. The appellant had produced evidence both with regard to negligence as well as quantum, including the income tax return showing the income of the deceased to be Rs.62,545/ -, which include the income from agricultural operations. The case papers with regard to treatment which he had taken in the hospital for about 14 months were also produced.

(3.) IT is this judgement and award, which is challenged in the present appeal by the appellant -original claimant, inter alia contending that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in not considering the agricultural income of the deceased and also ought to have appreciated that the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/ - per month at the time of the accident and therefore, considering the agricultural income as well as future prospects, the income of the deceased could have been considered at Rs.15,000/ - per month for the purpose of dependency benefits. It has also been contended that instead of 15, the multiplier of 18 should have been awarded looking to the young age of the deceased.