Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 73 (GUJ)

Rukhsana Nasirahmed Saiyed v. Mukeshchand Maheshchand Agrawal

2005-02-09

BHAWANI SINGH, H.K.RATHOD

body2005
BHAWANI SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award made by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal (Aux.) dated 7th October, 1998 in MACP No. 1096 of 1995. ( 2 ) THE appellants, claimants are the legal heirs of Nazirahmed Saiyed (deceased) who died in the vehicular accident on June 3, 1995 when he was crushed by the offending truck bearing Registration No. GJ-1-V-3112 driven rashly and negligently by its driver. The deceased was trading in lending pceromaxes and cycle repairing. He was earning Rs. 6500. 00 out of the lending of petromaxes and Rs. 2200. 00 out of the business of cycle repairing and Rs. 650/- by doing the work of vulcanizing punctures. Thus, the total monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 9,400. 00. At the time of accident, deceased was 37 years old. Total compensation of Rs. 11,57,000. 00 was claimed. ( 3 ) OPPONENT No. 2 states that the claim is highly excessive and exaggerated, disproportionate looking to the settled principles of legislation. Claim as to the age, income and injuries is also disputed. After framing of issues and considering the evidence led thereon, the tribunal found that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 1,38,000. 00 carrying interest at the rate of 15% p. a. from the date of the petition till the realization is awarded. Against this award, claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, we find that the deceased, of course, was trading in repairing of bicycles, lending of petromaxes but he seems to be carrying all this alongwith his brothers which is clear from some of the bills and evidence in the case. Nature of evidence is such which cannot be said to be satisfactory, therefore, tribunal should not have proceeded to assess compensation thereon. Instead, taking assistance from Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, income of the deceased is taken at Rs. 15000. 00 per year, that of an unemployed person, deducting l/3rd therefrom towards personal expenses, multiplied by 16, figure comes to rs. 1,60,000. 00. Claimants are entitled to rs. 10,000. 00 for loss of expectancy of life, rs. 3,000. 00 for funeral expenses, Rs. 2000. 00 for loss to the estate and Rs. 5000. 15000. 00 per year, that of an unemployed person, deducting l/3rd therefrom towards personal expenses, multiplied by 16, figure comes to rs. 1,60,000. 00. Claimants are entitled to rs. 10,000. 00 for loss of expectancy of life, rs. 3,000. 00 for funeral expenses, Rs. 2000. 00 for loss to the estate and Rs. 5000. 00 for consortium to the wife, total amount comes to Rs. 1,80,000. 00. Thus, there is enhancement of Rs. 42,000. 00. This enhancement will carry interest at the rate of 12%, p. a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment. ( 5 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal is allowed. Award is modified to the extent aforesaid. Compensation be worked out by the Insurance Company and paid to the claimants by way of an account payee cheque on proper verification within two months. Parties to bear their own costs. .