Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1011 (GUJ)

Bai Bachudi v. Babubhai Parathibhai Parmar

2014-09-10

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA

body2014
JUDGMENT : Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. By this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act have challenged an award dated 13th August 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) at Godhra, District Panchmahals in MAC Petition No. 799 of 1993 thereby awarding a sum of Rs.2,62,000/- as compensation for the death of the victim with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realisation. 2. Being dissatisfied, the claimants, namely, widow, three children and parents have come up with this appeal. 3. After going through the materials on record, I find that there is no dispute about the accident and the involvement of the offending tempo. According to the claimants, the victim was a brick manufacturer and seller and used to earn Rs.100/- a day. On the date of accident, namely, 31st March 1993 the victim loaded his bricks on the tempo with labourer after hiring the same and proceeded to deliver the same when due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the tempo the same overturned resulting in the death of the victim. Hence the application under section 166 of the Act was filed claiming compensation of Rs.4 lakh. 4. The claim-application was not contested by the owner or driver of the vehicle but the same was contested by the insurer of the vehicle thereby denying the allegations made in the application. 5. At the time of hearing, the widow of the victim gave evidence in support of the claim but none appeared to give evidence on behalf of the Insurance Company. 6. It appears that the learned Tribunal below did not accept the contention of the claimants that the income of the victim was Rs.3000/- a month but instead of that took a notional figure of Rs.1500/- a month. Thereafter, he deducted one-third for his personal expenditure and applied the multiplier of 18 to arrive at the figure of Rs.2,16,000/- as future loss of income and thereafter, added a further sum of Rs.15,000/- for mental pain, shock and suffering, further Rs.15,000/- for loss of consortium, love and affection, Rs.10,000/- for loss of expectation of life, Rs.1000/- towards transportation and Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses, to arrive at the total figure of Rs.2,62,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 7. Mr. Thakkar, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has advanced three pure questions of law in support of this appeal. 8. First, according to Mr. Thakkar, the learned Tribunal below did not take into consideration the aspect of future prospect and as such, the award impugned is in conflict with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 9. Mr. Thakkar next contends that as the victim had five dependents, deduction of one-third was not proper in the facts of the present case and it was the duty of the Tribunal to deduct one-fourth from the said amount. 10. Lastly, Mr. Thakkar contends that having regard to the fact that the accident occurred in the year 1993 when the usual bank rate of interest was 12% per annum there was no justification to award interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 11. Ms. Rahevar, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has, on the other hand, opposed the aforesaid contention of Mr. Thakkar and has contended that the learned Tribunal below on the basis of the evidence on record and in the absence of any documentary evidence rightly arrived at the figure of compensation and I should not interfere with the same. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the aforesaid materials, I propose to follow the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) on the basis of findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal below. I, thus, find substance in the contention of Mr. Thakkar that the aspect of future prospect was not taken note of by the learned Tribunal below and if we take into consideration that aspect we are required to add further 50% amount to the existing income and then should apply the multiplier of 17 after deducting one-fourth for the personal expenditure of the victim as he had five dependents. Applying the aforesaid principle, loss of future income will come to Rs.3,44,250/- to which a further sum of Rs.20,000/- as conventional amount should be added to arrive at the figure of Rs.3,64,250/-. 13. Applying the aforesaid principle, loss of future income will come to Rs.3,44,250/- to which a further sum of Rs.20,000/- as conventional amount should be added to arrive at the figure of Rs.3,64,250/-. 13. Since the accident occurred in the year 1993, in my opinion, the appropriate rate of interest should be 12% per annum from the date of filing of the application till 31st December 1999 and at the rate of 9% per annum from 1st January 2000 till actual realisation. 14. I, thus, modify the award impugned by enhancing the amount by Rs.1,02,250/- with further modification that on the entire amount the interest will be at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the application till 31st December 1999 and at the rate of 9% per annum from 1st January 2000 till actual realisation. 15. The appeal is, thus, allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.