The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the deceased's income, future prospective income, multiplier, parental consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses in the calculation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, J.

1. Present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) is at the instance of the appellants-original claimants in the proceedings under section 166 of the Act and is directed against the award dated 30.11.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P. No. 538 of 2004 thereby, allowing the claim petition in part and awarding a sum of Rs. 1,37,400/- + 9% interest as compensation as against the claim of Rs. 15,00,000/-.

2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the claimants have come up with the present appeal for enhancement of claim of Rs. 7,50,000 + interest as compensation.

3. It may not be out of place to mention that neither the respondent No. 2-National Insurance Company Limited nor the owner of the vehicle has filed any cross-objections or cross appeal disputing the award. Therefore, the only question arises for determination in this appeal is whether the learned Tribunal was justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 1,37,400/- as compensation in the facts of the present case.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi appearing for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Dakshesh Mehta appearing for respondent No. 2-Insurance Company. 6. Briefly stated, the claimants are the legal heirs and representatives of deceased-Tejas Nikunjbhai Soni, who on 17.02.2004 was passing through village Labhvel driving his Pulsar motorcycle bearing No. GJ-1-DG-2162, at around 3.15 p.m. at that time one boxer motorcycle bearing no. GJ-7-AK-4362, which was driven by Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner dashed with one scooter and thereafter with the bike of the deceased. It is submitted that due to the accident deceased fell down on the road and sustained serious injuries and died in the spot.

5. After hearing the submissions made before the Tribunal, the Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month.

6. There is no dispute that the age of the victim at the time of accident was 24 years.

7. Learned advocate Mr. Modi appearing on behalf of appellants argued that the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- but at the same time committed an error while not considering future prospective income of the deceased. It is submitted that the learned tribunal ought to have considered 50% future prospective income of the deceased, which would come to [5000 + 50% (2500)] which equals to Rs. 7,500/-. Thereafter, ½ amount is required to be deducted against personal expenses which would come to Rs. 7,500 - 3,750 which equals to Rs. 3,750/-. It is further argued by learned advocate Mr. Modi that the Learned Tribunal has further committed an error while adopting the multiplier of 6, that the Learned Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 18 since the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 24 years and 5 months. It is further argued by learned advocate Mr. Modi that after adopting the multiplier of 18 the amount would come to [Rs. 3,750 x 18 (multiplier) x 12] = 8,10,000/-. It is further argued by learned advocate Mr. Modi that the Learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards parental consortium, that the Learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs. 80,000 (40,000 each) towards parental consortium. It is also argued that the Learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, which would in total come to Rs. (8,10,000 + 1,10,000) = 9,20,000/-.

8. Learned advocate Mr. Modi relied upon the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680.

9. On the other hand learned advocate Mr. Mehta supports the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal and argued that the Tribunal has not committed any error. It is also vehemently argued that Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount towards the death of the deceased.

10. This Court has heard both the counsels and a