Decided on April 21,2014

Prakashchandra Prahladbhai Prajapati And Ors. Appellant
Thakor Kanaji Gambhirji And Ors. Respondents


R.P. Dholaria, J. - (1.) BY way of preferring present appeal, the appellants herein - original claimants seek to challenge the impugned judgment and award dated 18th December 2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 468 of 2011, by which, the learned Tribunal has awarded to the appellants herein - original claimants a total sum of Rs. 9,60,000/ - along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization fastening the liability upon respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein - original opponent Nos. 2 and 3. The facts in nutshell are as under : -
(2.) 1. That on 30.05.2011, the deceased Prakashchandra and his partner Mukeshbhai Visabhai Prajapati, after finishing their business from village Modhera, were returning to their village Udela upon a motorcycle No. GJ -2 -AL -8529. At that time, said Mukeshbhai Prajapati was driving the motorcycle and the deceased Prakashchandra was travelling as a pillion rider upon the said motorcycle. While the said motorcycle was proceeding on the highway leading towards Mehsana and when it reached within the vicinity of village Ganeshpura (Gambhu) Patiya at about 8:15 p.m., at that time, the driver of one scooter bearing No. GJ -2 -A -7699 came from behind in a very hectic speed and dashed with the aforesaid motorcycle from behind upon which the deceased was proceeding. In the result, the deceased sustained grievous injury on head and ultimately he succumbed to the injuries. 2. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order, the appellants herein have preferred present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. As narrow question of quantum is involved in the present appeal, this Court, vide order dated 10.03.2014, issued Notice for final disposal making it returnable on 15.04.2014. In pursuant thereto, Shri. G.C. Mazmudar, learned Advocate has appeared for the insurance Company - respondent No. 3. None has appeared for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 though served.
(3.) MR . Barot, learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal, while assessing the amount of compensation, failed to consider the prospective income and the learned Tribunal has fallen in error in deducting 1/3rd of income for personal and living expenditure of deceased instead of deducting 1/4th as the claimants are the wife, daughter and parents of deceased i.e. in all four persons. He has also submitted that the rule of thumb laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the celebrated decision Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in : (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 has not been taken into consideration while awarding the compensation and he has urged to count the prospective income.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.