MAHESHKUMAR RAMJIBHAI RANINGA SINCE DECD. THROUGH HEIRS Vs GIRISH PRABHASHANKAR PANDYA & ORS.

This First Appeal is filed by the

appellants under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicle Act praying for modifying the

judgment and order dated 14.2.2008 passed by

the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal

(Aux.) Gondal in Motor Accident Claim

Petition No.723 of 1998 and prayed to enhance

amount of compensation by further

Rs.5,00,000/- with appropriate cost and

interest, as well be prayed to modify the

same, inter alia, holding and directing that

all the respondents are jointly and severally

liable to pay the compensation amount arising

out of the said claim case.

It is the case of the appellants that on

fateful day i.e. on 19.9.1998 the deceased

Maheshbhai Ramjibhai Raninga alongwith his

family was travelling in the Ambassador Car

bearing No.GJ-7A-2935 and going from Keshod

to Rajkot and when they reached to Gondal

bye-pass road near the outskirts of Village

Bhojpara, at that time, the opponent No.4

driver of S.T.Bus No.GJ-18B-2056 came driving his bus from the opposite side in rash and

negligent manner and at an excessive speed so

as to endanger human life without observing

traffic rules and all of a sudden came on

wrong side and, therefore, with a view to

save from the said bus the driver of

Ambassador car has also taken said car on

wrong side and, therefore, bus driver has

tried to take his bus from wrong side to

right side and ultimately dashed with left

side of the Ambassador Car No.GJ-7A-2935 and

hence the accident in question has happened.

On account of the said accident, the deceased

Maheshbhai Ramjibhai Raninga died and

applicant of M.A.C.P. No.723 of 1998

sustained grievous injuries. It has been

further averred that the accident in question

has happened due to sheer and sole negligence

on the part of drivers of both the offending

vehicles.

Heard Mr.Amar D.Mithani, learned advocate

for the appellants and Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati,

learned advocate for the respondent No.3 and

Mrs.Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned advocate for

the respondent No.5.

Mr.Amar D.Mithani, learned advocate for the

appellants has submitted that the judgment

and award passed by the Tribunal is improper,

unjust and against the provisions of law. He

has submitted that deceased Maheshkumar

Ramjibhai Raninga, who lost his life in the

unfortunate vehicular accident dated

19.9.1998 was 32 years of age and has left

behind two minor children and a widow who are

claimants of M.A.C.P. No.723 of 1998.

He has submitted that according to the

claimants the deceased was doing wholesale

business of gold and silver and was doing the

job work in the nature of "Madhav Jewelers"

as its proprietor. He has submitted that

before the Tribunal below the widow of the

deceased was examined at Ex.39 and Income Tax

Inspector was examined at Ex.63, while the

income tax returns were produced at Ex.56 to

59.

He has submitted that according to the

appellants the Tribunal has not awarded the

prospective rise in come and the multiplier

ought to have been adopted of 16, in place of

15 and that under the head of conventional

amount the Tribunal was required to award a

sum of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards the

funeral expenses.

He has submitted that the Tribunal award

future loss of income Rs.57,000/- per annuam

net income, less one third (1/3) amount

towards the personal expenses i.e.

Rs.38,000/- multiplied with a multiplier of

15 years equal to Rs.5,70,000/-. The Tribunal

awarded Rs.20,000/- towards conventional

amount and Rs.2500/- towards funeral

expenses. Lastly, he has submitted that

learned Tribunal has committed an error in

not considering the multiplier of 16 as per

the decision in the case of Sarla Verma

(Smt.) and Ors., vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and Anr ., reported in (2009) 6

SCC 121 when sufficient evidence were

produced on record. He, therefore, submitted

that the award requires to be modified as

prayed for.

Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for

the respondent No.3 and Mrs.Vasavdatta Bhatt,

learned advocate for the respondent No.5 have

submitted that the judgment and award passed

by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal,

Gondal, is just and proper and do not require

any interference. They have submitted that

the Tribunal has correctly taken the income

as also applied the correct multiplier and

the same requires no interference.

I have heard learned advocates for the

respective parties at length and in great

details. I have perused the averments made in

the memo of appeal. Before the Tribunal the

appellants produced sufficient evidence

regarding income and age of the deceased

which is just and proper. The choice of the

multiplier is determined by the age of the

claimant. The multiplier method is logically

sound and legally well established. Hence

this Court is inclined to award multiplier of

16 as per the decision in the case of Sarla

Verma (Smt.) and Ors., vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and Anr ., reported in (2009) 6

SCC 121. Keeping that in mind, this Court is

of the view that multiplier of 16 is just and

proper.

In the result, the appeal is partly

allowed. However, considering the facts of

the case deduction towards personal expenses

at the rate of ; Rs.57,000/- per annum net income +

prospective rise in future income Rs.28,500/- = Rs.85,500/- less one third (1/3) amount

towards the personal expenses multiplied with

a multiplier of 16 years = Rs.9,12,000/- and

Rs.30,000/- towards conventional and

Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses. The

learned Tribunal has passed the award of

Rs.5,92,500/-. Therefore present appellants

are entitled to enhance amount of

compensation of Rs.3,55,000/- along with 9%

from the date of application filed before the

Tribunal. The respondents are directed to

deposit the aforesaid amount within a period

of eight weeks from the date of receipt of

this judgment and order. Upon deposit of the

amount the same shall be disbursed to the

appellants on proper verification. Thus the

award deserves to be modified to the

aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to

the aforesaid extent.

Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent

back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.