PATEL GANPATBHAI PRAHLADBHAI Vs. CHAUDHARI SENDHABHAI MULJIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Tejas P. Satta with learned advocate Mr. Jayesh V. Patel for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Alkesh N. Shah for the respondent No.3. Respondents No.1 and 2, though duly served, have remained absent.

(2.) The appellants herein are original claimants; whereas, respondents are respective original opponents before the M.A.C.T. of Mehsana in M.A.C.P. No.679 of 2009. Claimants have challenged the judgment and award dated 13.7.2016 in such appeal whereby, Tribunal has committed 50% negligence of the victim of the accident and failed to consider prospective income of the victim while awarding Rs.6,83,000/- after deducting same amount for the negligence of the victim, though total amount of compensation calculated by the Tribunal was Rs.13,66,000/-.

(3.) Being aggrieved, both on quantum of compensation and percentage of contribution of negligence of the victim, the appellants have preferred this appeal. I have perused the record so also R & P of the Tribunal. It is undisputed fact that on 4.8.2009, victim - Sanjaybhai Ganpatbhai Patel was driving Motorcycle No.GJ2AJ-2303 and dashed with the Dumper No.GJ-2Z1930, which resulted into fatal injuries to him. Considering the age and income of the victim, his legal heirs being parents and younger brother of victim, have preferred the claim petition claiming Rs.20 Lacs as compensation. After allowing both the sides to adduce their evidence, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that deceased victim had also contributed to the negligence and fixed the contribution of victim for the accident to the tune of 50% and therefore, though total quantum of compensation was considered as Rs.13,66,000/-, awarding only 50% of it being Rs.6,83,000/-. For arriving at such quantum, Tribunal has taken Rs.12,000/- as monthly earnings of the victim and after deducting one-half ( ) towards his personal expenses being an unmarried man, taken Rs.6,000/- as loss of dependency and applied 18 as suitable multiplier. Since none of the opponents have challenged such award, it becomes clear that there is no dispute regarding nature of incident and liability of the Insurance Company. Therefore, all those details are not required to be reproduced.