DEVJIBHAI HIRJIBHAI SHIYAL (DECD. THRO LEGAL HEIRS) vs. DUDABHAI JIVABHAI SINGRAKHIA

C/FA/1503/2005 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1503 of 2005

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA

================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ DEVJIBHAI HIRJIBHAI SHIYAL (DECD. THRO LEGAL HEIRS)....Appellant(s) Versus DUDABHAI JIVABHAI SINGRAKHIA & 2....Defendant(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR DAVE FOR MR YOGESH S LAKHANI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 - 1.2.2 , 1.3 - 1.4 MR MAULIK J SHELAT, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 3 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 - 2 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA

Page 1 of 3

C/FA/1503/2005 JUDGMENT Date : 02/09/2014

ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of the claimants in a proceeding under section 166 of the Act and is directed against an award dated 5th October 2004, passed by the learned M.A.C.Tribunal [Special] Porbandar in M.A.C. Petition No. 52 of 1996, thereby partly allowing the application under section 166 of the Act by awarding a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realization of the amount. It appears from the record that on 1st February 1996, while the victim was travelling on his bicycle, the same was hit by an auto rickshaw coming from the opposite direction, as a result, the victim was seriously injured and succumbed to the injuries. In the claim application, the claimants prayed for compensation of Rs. 18.00 Lac on the allegation that the yearly income of the victim was Rs. 10 to 12 Lac as he was in the trade of shipping. The learned Tribunal below, on consideration of the materials on record, came to a conclusion that the claimants failed to prove that the income of the victim was Rs. 10 to 12 Lac per annum and the income-tax return that was filed was submitted long after the death of the victim on behalf of the heirs of the victim. It further appears from the record that at the time of the deposition, the son of the victim admitted that his father did not own either any motor car or even a scooter. He further admitted that at the time of death, the victim had no bank balance in his account. Page 2 of 3

C/FA/1503/2005 JUDGMENT On consideration of the aforesaid materials, the learned Tribunal below disbelieved the case of the claimants about the income of the victim and was of the view that the monthly income of the victim was Rs. 3000/- a month and the victim being aged 58 years at the time of death, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 7 to arrive at the figure of Rs. 2,53,000/-. In addition to that, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was awarded under the head of loss of consortium and further sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards transportation of dead body and miscellaneous expenses was awarded. After hearing the learned advocate for the appellants and after going through the materials on record, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal below, in the facts of the present case, rightly held that the claimants failed to prove that the victim was the owner of a ship when it appears from his bank balance that there was nothing and that he did not own even either a motor car or a scooter and was simply travelling on bicycle. I, thus, find that there is no substance in the appeal and consequently the same is dismissed. (BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, CJ.) pirzada Page 3 of 3