NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MANILAL VALLABHBHAI PRAJAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act"), the appellant-Insurance Company has called into question award dated 31. 01. 2007 of M. A. C. T. , Valsad in M. A. C. P. No. 1964 of 2002, whereby total compensation of Rs. 4,60,000/- was awarded to the claimants with interest at the rate of 7. 5% and cost.

(2.) THE appeal was pressed mainly for the purpose of reducing the amount of compensation on the grounds that the negligence could have been partly attributed to the deceased himself and that the Tribunal had erred in applying multiplier of 16 while age of the deceased at the time of death was 28 years. It was vehemently argued by learned counsel Ms. Bhaya that after assuming the income of the deceased to be Rs. 100/- per day and Rs. 3,000/- per month, the dependency benefit was counted on the basis of Rs. 25,000/- per year by deducting only 1/3 of the income. It was pointed out from the evidence that the deceased was already engaged and, therefore, he was to marry very shortly. Therefore, 2/3 of his income ought to have been deducted, according to the submission. She also pointed out that the age of the parents of the deceased was 56 and 52 respectively which could not justify application of multiplier of 16 in the peculiar facts of the case. Otherwise, there was no dispute about the fact that the deceased aged 28 died on 21. 01. 2002 after the accident dated 17. 01. 2002 in which the truck insured by the appellant dashed from behind with the motorcycle driven by the deceased and the deceased succumbed to the injuries after four days of treatment.

(3.) LEARNED counsel Mr. Tolia, appearing for the original claimants, submitted that the deceased was the only son and was not married at the time of death and, therefore, higher multiplier was properly applied by the Tribunal. He also submitted that even though, the claimants had originally claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction and justification for awarding higher amount in view of the evidence led before it.