NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. REVABHAI PUNJABHAI VAGHELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd. The appellant-National Insurance Company has challenged award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Ahmedabad in M. A. C. Petition No. 943 of 2004 dated 07. 05. 2008 Exh. 40. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,69,960/- (Rupees One Lac Sixty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Only) compensation with 9% interest in favour of respondent-claimant.

(2.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah raised contention that respondent claimant at the time of accident having age of 57 years and he was retired at age of 60 years. Therefore, 8 multiplier is on higher side at the most, it can be considered for 5 multiplier relying upon decision of this Court in 1993 (2) GLR Pg. 1046. He also raised contention that salary of claimant is taken by Claims Tribunal without taking authorized deduction as well as net pay and income tax were not taken into account. It is to be deducted from salary but is is not deducted by Claims Tribunal. Therefore, Claims Tribunal has committed gross error in considering entire gross pay of Rs. 13,668/- as per certificate produced by claimant. He relied upon decision of Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd versus Indira Shirvastva and others reported in 2007 (14) SCALE page 461. The observations made by Apex Court in aforesaid decision in paragraph 22 suggests that net income has been used but same itself would ordinarily mean gross income minus statutory deductions. Therefore, he submitted that income tax which has been deducted while receiving aforesaid salary by claimant which comes to Rs. 1034/- has not been deducted by Claims Tribunal while calculating or working out compensation. Except that, no other submission is made by learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah.

(3.) THE accident occurred on 22. 03. 2004 when opponent claimant Revabhai was going on his cycle to his house on left side of road and at that time, driver of maruti car had suddenly taken in reverse without taking care to any person or pedestrians and dashed maruti car while taking reverse to opponent's cycle as cyclist was behind maruti car and so, claimant had fallen down with his cycle and sustained grievous injures and was admitted in V. S. Hospital as an indoor patient for treatment. The total claim was made by claimant was Rs. 4,00,000/ -. After receiving summons from Claims Tribunal Exh. 23, reply was filed by Insurance Company before Claims Tribunal. According to reply, claim is highly excessive according to Insurance Company and except that no other contention is raised before Claims Tribunal in paragraph 2. The opponent Nos. 2 and 3 (original opponent Nos. 1 and 2) both have also filed reply vide Exh. 17. Thereafter, issues are framed by Claims Tribunal vide Exh. 26. The issue No. 1 negligence is decided in affirmative that opponent No. 1 driver was driving vehicle with rash and negligent manner and due to that rashness and negligence accident had occurred.