NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MANUJLABEN RAJESHBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals are preferred from the judgment and award dated 01. 07. 1995 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 68 of 1994 on the common issue of quantum of compensation. The appellant-insurance company has sought reduction of compensation mainly on the ground that higher multiplier of 22 was applied even as the deceased victim of the accident had died due to the accident at the age of 29 years. The appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation was argued on the basis that monthly income of the deceased was taken to be Rs. 1,500/- only without any basis against the evidence of monthly income of Rs. 5,000/ -. There was no dispute about the fact that the deceased, aged 29, had passed away due to the accident that happened on 26. 11. 1993 at about 4. 30 a. m. between village Mulcharai and Patna and it was attributable to rash and negligent driving of truck insured by the aforesaid appellant.

(2.) LEARNED counsel Ms. Viraj Fozdar with learned counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta, appearing for the insurance company, relied upon recent judgment of the Supreme Court in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Bala and Others [ (2006) 6 SCC 249] and New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Kalpana and Others [2007 (2) SCALE 227] in support of the submission that, in case of death at the age of 29, the higher multiplier that could be applied was 17 and application in the impugned award of multiplier of 22 was obviously on higher side. As against that, learned counsel Mr. Arpit Patel, appearing for original claimants, submitted that, in the facts of the present case, widow of the deceased had deposed before the Tribunal clearly stating on oath that the deceased was running a public carrier owned by himself and earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. It was also deposed that, after death of her husband, a driver had had to be employed at monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/ -. Those statements were not contradicted by anything in cross-examination or by any other evidence. It was, on that basis, submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in basing its calculations on the multiplicand of Rs. 1,000/- after deducting Rs. 500/- from the assumed monthly income of Rs. 1,500/ -. Mr. Patel also submitted that the deceased had left behind his widow and four minor children besides his parents. Therefore, deduction of one-third of the income towards deceased himself was not proper and justified.

(3.) IT was seen from the impugned award that the Tribunal had relied upon at least three judgments of the Supreme Court in applying multiplier of 22 but given no reason for fixing the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,500/- per month.