DHANESINH JUJARSINH SISODIYA Vs. RANCHHODBHAI VIRABHAI BHARWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants, parents of the deceased victim of the accident, have preferred the appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the impugned award dated 01. 09. 2005 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 518 of 1991.

(2.) THERE is no dispute about the facts that the deceased was aged 22 years when, on 15. 09. 1997, the tanker dashed from behind with the cycle on which the deceased and his brother were riding. The deceased was employed as a trainee in weaving department of a mill at daily wages of Rs. 40. 00. He was claimed to be earning additional Rs. 1,800. 00 per month out of tuitions. However, the Tribunal accepted the figure of Rs. 1,500. 00 as his monthly income and deducting therefrom two-thirds on account of his being unmarried, assessed yearly loss to the parents at Rs. 6,000. 00 and applying multiplier of 14, awarded Rs. 84,000. 00. To that were added Rs. 16,000. 00 towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and transportation charges, and total sum of rupees one lakh is awarded by way of compensation.

(3.) IT was argued by learned counsel for the appellant that additional income of the deceased and his promising career as a trained employee in weaving department of a mill ought to have been considered by the Tribunal for assessing the future rise in his income; and higher multiplier ought to have been applied in view of the deceased having been survived by his brother, although he was not joined as a claimant. It was also pointed out that, even without proving negligence of anyone, the appellants could have been awarded much higher amount if the claim petition were filed under the provisions of section 163-A of the Act. As against that, learned counsel Mr. Vikky Mehta, appearing with learned counsel Mr. M. S. Shah for the insurer, submitted that there was no evidence of additional income earned by the deceased by way of tuition fees and his employment was also of a temporary nature. He further submitted that the deceased was survived by his parents, who were aged 44 and 42, on the basis of which the multiplier could have been determined. He further submitted that deduction of two-thirds of the amount of compensation was proper in view of the status of the deceased as an unmarried person.