The court applied legal principles from relevant Supreme Court decisions to re-assess the income of the deceased and determine the entitlement to different heads of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

(Mauna M. Bhatt, J.)

1. This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act” for short) is filed by the Insurance Company as appellant, challenging the judgment and award dated 22.03.2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.161 of 2003, wherein the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.39,65,245/- with 8% interest p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till realization with proportionate cost.

2. The brief facts arising from this appeal are as under :

2.1 On 22.07.2002, Pradipbhai Jerambhai Patel, after parking his motor car, was crossing the road at which time, one Jeep Car No.GJ–03–DD–2767, came in rash and negligent manner and hit Pradipbhai Jerambhai Patel, resulting into an accident. In the said accident, Pradipbhai Jerambhai Patel (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same. The legal heirs of the deceased, filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest and cost. It was the case of the original claimants that the accident occurred on account of sole negligence of driver of Jeep Car No.GJ–03–DD– 2767. It was further their case that the deceased was doing business at Rajkot and was partner in firm M/s. Vasant Diesel Spares (India) having annual income of Rs.3,00,000/-.

2.2 Upon claim petition being filed, notices were issued. The respondent – Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and upon consideration of evidence on record, decided the issue of negligence in favour of original claimants by holding, the driver of Jeep Car No. GJ–03–DD–2767, sole negligent for occurrence of the accident.

In relation to compensation, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.39,65,245/- under different heads as under:

2.3 Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded, present Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company as appellant seeking reduction in the quantum of compensation.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.J. Shelat for the appellant – Insurance Company and learned advocate Mr. Hiren M. Modi for respondent Nos.1.1 to 1.5. Before the Tribunal, opponent Nos.1 and 2 (driver and owner of Jeep Car No.GJ–03–DD–2767) chose not to appear. As liability has not been denied, presence of other respondents is not necessary and dispensed with. Record and Proceedings have been secured from the Tribunal and placed before this Court for perusal.

4. Appearing for the Insurance Company, learned advocate Mr. M. J. Shelat submitted that the Tribunal is in serious error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.2,62,683/- p.a. Relying upon the income tax returns of the deceased for the Assessment Years 2000–01, 2001–02 and 2002–03 at Exh.49 to 51, he submitted that if the average income of the deceased for these three assessment years, as declared in the income tax returns is taken into consideration, then after deducting tax, the net average income would be Rs.2,27,048/- p.a. Therefore, the Tribunal is in error in assessing the income at Rs.2,62,683/- p.a. He, thus, submitted to consider the income of the deceased at Rs.2,27,048/- p.a. He further submitted that as deceased was self–employed and survived by five dependents, therefore, 1/4 amount is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Considering the age of the deceased at 42 years, multiplier of 14 would be applicable instead of 15. He thus, submitted to allow his appeal to the aforesaid extent and reduce the compensation accordingly.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Hiren M. Modi for the original claimants submitted that befo