- (1.) FEELING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 24 -5 -2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Presiding Officer, FTC No.3, Vadodara,, (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal" for short) in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.490 of 1994 by which the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition and has awarded a total sum of Rs.2,89,950/ - towards compensation for the death of the deceased -Chandulal alias Chandrakant Hansraj Shah along with interest @ 7.5.% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization, the appellants herein -original claimants have preferred the present First Appeal.
(2.) FACTS leading to filing of present First Appeals in a nutshell are that in a vehicular accident which took place on 27 -10 -1993 at about 2 p.m., on Baroda -Por Road, the deceased Chandulal, who, at the relevant time was driving the motor cycle, met with an accident with the truck which, at the relevant time, was being driven by the original opponent No.1 and he sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the claimants, heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming a total sum of Rs.50,00,000/ - towards compensation for the death of the deceased. 2.1 It was the case on behalf of the original claimants that the accident occurred because of sole negligence on the part of driver of the truck -original opponent No.1. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 30 years/less than 30 years and he was a businessman, industrialist and investor. It was further the case on behalf of the original claimants that the deceased was also doing service and was also getting commission. According to the original claimants, the deceased was a partner in one M/s. Bhaval Metal Industries of Vapi and was also getting income from M/s. Super Metal Manufacturing Company and M/s. Dilip Steel India Ltd. Therefore, according to the original claimants, in all, the deceased was getting an income of Rs.2,00,000/ - per annum. It was also the case on behalf of the original claimants that the deceased had invested his money in M/s. Super Metal Manufacturing Company; M/s. Dudhani Metals and M/s. Naresh Steels and was also getting interest from his father's capital invested in M/s. Super Metal Manufacturing Company. According to the original claimants, the deceased had also invested money in National Savings Certificates and had also taken insurance policies. According to the original claimants, the deceased was getting salary of about Rs.3,500/ - per month from M/s. Dilip Steels and more than Rs.1,500/ - from M/s. Super Steel. It was also the case on behalf of the original claimants that the deceased had also started another manufacturing unit in the name and style of M/s. Super Metal Manufacturing Company at Por, Vadodara, and in the said business, the share of his wife was 50% and for the said project, the deceased and the original claimant No.1(wife of the deceased) were going to invest huge amount of Rs.32,00,000/ -. According to the original claimants, if the business would have started according to the schedule within a year or two, they would have earned a net amount of Rs.3.00 to Rs.4.00 lakhs per annum by way of income from that industry. 2.2 The claim petition was opposed by opponent No.3 -insurance company by filing written statement at Exh.18. The insurance company denied all the allegations and averments made in the claim petition including the time, date and place of accident as well as involvement of the vehicle, age and income of the deceased at the time of accident. 2.3 The learned Tribunal has framed the issues at Exh.26. 2.4 The original claimants led the following documentary as well as oral evidences :
(3.) XXX XXX XXX 3.4 On appreciation of evidences on record, the learned Tribunal has held the original opponent No.1 -driver of motor truck involved in the accident sole negligent. 3.5 On appreciation of evidence, more particularly, the Income Tax Returns of the last three years filed by the deceased, the learned Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.26,600/ - per annum and thereafter, after deducting one -third towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 15 considering the age of the deceased at 32 years as mentioned in the hospital vardhi, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,65,950/ - towards future loss of income. Thereafter, awarding further Rs.20,000/ - towards loss of love and consortium and Rs.3,000/ - towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,000/ - towards transportation expenses, by impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.2,89,950/ - with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. 3.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the original claimants have preferred the present First Appeal. Shri Hakim, learned advocate appearing on behalf of original claimants, has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in assessing the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.26,600/ - per annum. It is submitted that while assessing the income of the deceased at the time of accident, the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the documentary evidences on record, more particularly, the fact that the deceased had applied for the loan of Rs.32.00 lakhs from GSFC which was sanctioned and the deceased was about to install/erect a new factory. 4.1 It is further submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the original claimants that even while awarding loss of dependency/future economic loss, the learned Tribunal has not considered the future rise in income at all. It is submitted that as the deceased was aged about 30 years and considering his prospects and/or potentiality to earn more in future, the learned Tribunal ought to have added 30% towards future rise in income and ought to have arrived at the prospective income and thereby ought to have awarded future economic loss accordingly. 4.2 It is further submitted by Mr. Hakim, learned advocate appearing for the original claimants, that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the age of the deceased at 32 years. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased at the time of accident at 32 years on the basis of the age mentioned in the hospital vardhi only. It is submitted that however, the learned Tribunal has not considered the date of birth of the deceased mentioned in the life insurance policy/policies produced at Exhs.46 and 47 in which the date of birth of the deceased was mentioned as 10 -2 -1962. It is submitted that therefore, at the time of accident, the deceased was less than 30 years of age and therefore, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 AIR(SC) 3104 , the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 17 instead of 15 as applied by the learned Tribunal. 4.3 It is further submitted by Mr. Hakim, learned advocate appearing for the original claimants that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding a total sum of Rs.20,000/ - only under the head of loss of love and affection and loss of estate. It is submitted that as such, the claimants shall be entitled to at least Rs.50,000/ - in all under the conventional heads i.e. loss of estate, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. 4.4 It is further submitted by Mr. Hakim, learned advocate appearing for the original claimants that even otherwise the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding interest @ 7.5% per annum. It is submitted that as the accident occurred in the year 1993 and as per the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, the claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till realization. 4.5 No other submissions have been made. 4.6 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma ( 2009 AIR(SC) 3104 , it is requested to allow the present appeal to the aforesaid extent and modify the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal.;