TARABEN PRAVINBHAI TADVI & ORS. vs . & 4....

This First Appeal is filed by the appellant

under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act

praying for modifying the judgment and order

dated 31.8.2009 passed by the learned Motor

Accident Claim Tribunal (Auxi), Fast Track

Court No.1, Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim

Petition No.1229 of 1997 and prayed to award

further compensation and direct the

respondent to deposit the amount with

interest.

It is the case of the appellant that at

about 10 p.m. on 24.4.1997, Pravinbhai

Somabhai Tadvi, who died in the accident, was

driving his Tempo No. GJ-6-U-6800 at a normal

speed and going towards Bamroli from Dabhoi.

When he was going on his side, at that time,

from the opposite side, that is, from Bodeli,

one dumper truck bearing Truck No. GJ-2-T-

8790, which was driven carelessly and at a

full speed by opponent No. 1, was coming from

the opposite direction. At the place of the

incident, as the deceased had to go on the

opposite side of the road and as he was

waiting for the vehicle coming from the side

to pass, he had kept and stopped his tempo at

his side and he was waiting for turning

towards the right side with his tempo. At

that time, the driver of the dumper truck

lost control over his truck due to rash and

negligent driving and dashed his dumper with

the tempo, where the deceased was standing

with his tempo. Thus, the truck dumper hit

the tempo from the front side and as the

tempo was small in size, it was flung out at

least 10 feet to the back side and the said

Pravinbhai, who was driving the tempo, had

sustained serious injuries and thus, a

serious accident took place. The said

accident took place due to rash and negligent

driving of opponent No. 1 and there was no

fault of the deceased in it. In this regard,

an offence being CR No. I-21/1997 was

registered at Bodeli Police Station under the

provisions of Sections 279, 304(A), 337, 338

of the IPC and Section 177 and 184 of the

M.V. Act. Pravinbhai Somabhai Tadvi, who died

in an accident, was driving a tempo. Apart

from that, he was doing work of

transportation of milk and he was receiving

monthly salary of Rs. 4000/-. At the time of

accident, the age of deceased Pravinbhai was

27 years of age. Applicant No.1 is the wife

of the deceased. Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are

daughter and son of the deceased Pravinbhai.

Applicant No. 5 is his mother.

Heard Mr.M.T.M.Hakim, learned advocate for

the appellants, Mr.V.C.Thomas, learned

advocate for the respondent No.3 and

Mr.Maulik J. Shelat, learned advocate for the

respondent No.5.

Mr.M.T.M.Hakim, 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 learned Tribunal has

miserably erred in drawing highly unjustified

and unwarranted inference from the evidence

on record.

He has submitted that learned Tribunal has

erred in awarding Rs.3,97,250/- against the

claim of Rs.10,00,000/-. He has submitted

that the learned Tribunal has seriously erred

in considering the income of deceased at

Rs.3,000/- per month and awarding

compensation under the head of future loss of

income. He has submitted that learned

Tribunal ought to have appreciated and

considered that Alhadpura Shit Kendra had

entered into contract with deceased to

collect milk from several villages and

deposit at their milk collection depot.

He has submitted that learned Tribunal ought

to have appreciated and considered that

deceased was well versed in business of

transport and if his life would not have cut

short due to unfortunate accident, he would

have earned at least Rs.20,000/- p.m.

He has submitted that learned Tribunal has

erred in awarding one third dependency to the

present appellant out of income to the

deceased, whereas the learned Tribunal ought

to have awarded 5/6th dependency to the

present appellants out of income of the

deceased.

He has submitted that learned Tribunal has

erred in awarding Rs.10,000/- towards loss of

consortium and rs.10,000/- towards loss of

expectation of life. He has submitted that

learned Tribunal has erred in awarding

Rs.5,000/- towards pain-shock and suffering.

He has submitted that learned Tribunal has

erred in awarding interest at the rate of

7.5% only.

Lastly he has submitted that learned

Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier of

18 considering 26 years of age of the

deceased at the time of accident 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.V.C.Thomas, learned advocate for the

respondent No.3 has submitted that the

judgment and award passed by the learned

learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Auxi),

Fast Track Court No.1, Vadodara, is just and

proper and do not require any interference.

He submitted that the Tribunal has correctly

taken the income as also applied the correct

multiplier and the same requires no

interference.

Mr.Maulik J. Shelat, learned advocate for

the respondent No.5 has submitted that he is

only a formal party as such he has been

absolved from paying the compensation.

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 18 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.3000 income + 50% = Rs.4500/- one fourth (-) deduction for personal expenses of Rs.4500 x - = Rs.3375

Rs.3375 x 12 months = Rs.40500/-

Rs.40500 x 17 (multiplier) = Rs.6,88,500/-

Rs.2500/- funeral expenses,

Rs.10,000/- loss of expectation of life,

Rs.10,000/- loss of consortium,

Rs.5,000/- pain, shock and suffering

Rs.7,16,000/- minus 30% contributory negligence Rs.2,14,800/- it comes to Rs.5,01,200/-

Rs.3,97,250/- Tribunal awarded.

Rs.1,03,950/- Total

Hence total award comes to Rs.5,01,200/-. The

learned Tribunal has passed the award of

Rs.3,97,250/-. From the complaint and

panchnama on record it appears that tempo and

the dumper dashed, there was head on

collision and, therefore, learned Tribunal

has considered that tempo driver was also

negligent and has rightly considered

contributory negligence. Therefore present

appellants are entitled to enhanced amount of

compensation of Rs.1,03,950/- along with 7.5%

from the date of application filed before the

Tribunal. The respondent is 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.

Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent

back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.