AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 09.11.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Main), Dahod in MACP No.214 of 2007, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as the “Actâ€).
2.0. The facts indicating that Jaymalaben Nikhilkumar Pathak was working as a Teacher along with other teachers was driving in Jeep bearing
registration No. GJÂ17ÂCÂ4834 between Dahod to Godhra. The record indicates that when the said vehicle reached village Jekot, Eicher Tempo
bearing registration No.GJÂ16ÂXÂ6349 being driven in rash and negligent manner and in excessive speed came from other side and dashed with the
Jeep, that too, on wrong side, because of which, deceased Jaymalaben and other sustained injuries and ultimately succumbed to the same. An FIR
came to be lodged with the Dahod Rural Police Station bearing IÂCRÂNo.45 of 2007. The respondents â€" original claimants preferred Claim
Petition under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs.41,20,000/Â.
2.1. It was the case on behalf of the original claimants that accident occurred because of sole negligence of the driver of the Eicher Tempo. It was
also the case of the original claimants that deceased was a teacher in Kanjeta Madhyamik Shala, Kanjeta and was drawing salary of Rs.18614/Â.
The original claimants relied upon the documentary evidence such as, FIR, Panchnama of scene of occurrence, Pay slip, postmortem report,
certificate issued by the School to prove income of the deceased. The Tribunal believed the case of the opponents original claimants and on
appreciation of evidence on record, determined the income of of Rs.18614/Â per month and gave 50% prospective income and over and above that
deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased and applied multiplier of 16 and awarded sum of Rs.35,73,888/Â as compensation
under the head of future loss of dependency and further awarded an amount of Rs.27,000/Â under the different conventional heads including funeral
expenses and thus, awarded total compensation of Rs.35,98,900/Â with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
2.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant Insurance Company has preferred this
appeal.
3.0. Heard Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. MTM Hakim, learned advocate for the original claimants and Mr. Sabir
Saiyad, learned advocate for the respondent no.3. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of other respondents.
4.0. Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant Insurance Company has contended that the age of the deceased was 37 years on the date of
accident and therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in applying 16 multiplier. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sarla Verma and ors vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and Anr reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, it was contended by Nanavati that
appropriate multiplier would be 15. On the aforesaid singular contention, it was contended by Mr. Nanavati that impugned judgment and award
deserves to be modified to the aforesaid extent by applying appropriate multiplier.
5.0. Per contra, Mr. MTM Hakim, learned advocate for the original claimants has submitted that this Court may adopt appropriate multiplier.
However, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680, it was contended by Mr. MTM Hakim that the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.27000/Â under the different
conventional heads, which deserves to be enhanced to Rs.70,000/Â and Mr. Hakim contended that award be modified accordingly.
6.0. No other and further submissions / contentions have been raised by the learned advocates for the respective parties.
7.0. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the Record and Proceedings of the
case, it is matter of fact that deceased was 37 years of age on the date of accident. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Sarla Verma (Supra) as well as Pranay Shethi (supra), the appropriate multiplier would be 15. Mr. Hakim is also correct in ascertaining that original
claimants would be entitled to compensation under the different conventional heads including funeral expenses to the extent of Rs.70,000/Â.
8.0. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the original claimants would be entitled to compensation as under:
“Rs. 18614/ p.m (income) + Rs.9307/ (50% prospective income) = 27921/ per month  9307/ (1/3rd towards personal expenses =
Rs.18614/ (per month income) x 12 = 2,23,368 (income pa) x 15 (multiplier)= 33,50,520/“
The original claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.70,000/Â under the different conventional heads. Thus, original claimants shall entitled to total
compensation of Rs.34,20,520/Â with 9% interest from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.
9.0. Thus, the original claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.34,20,520/Â. As the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.
35,98,900/Â, the Insurance Company is entitled to claim refund of the differential amount of Rs.1,78,380/Â with interest and proportionate costs.
Appeal is thus, partly allowed. Registry is directed to transmit back the original record and proceedings of the case to the Tribunal forthwith.