MOHAMMED ZAKIR MOHAMMED MIYAN IDARIYA vs. ABDUL LATIF ABDUL HAKIM IMAM

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 24 of 2014 With FIRST APPEAL NO. 640 of 2014 With FIRST APPEAL NO. 25 of 2014 With FIRST APPEAL NO. 641 of 2014 With FIRST APPEAL NO. 26 of 2014 With FIRST APPEAL NO. 642 of 2014 With FIRST APPEAL NO. 27 of 2014 With FIRST APPEAL NO. 643 of 2014 With FIRST APPEAL NO. 28 of 2014 With FIRST APPEAL NO. 644 of 2014 With FIRST APPEAL NO. 29 of 2014 With FIRST APPEAL NO. 645 of 2014 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2624 of 2014 In FIRST APPEAL NO. 640 of 2014 TO CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2629 of 2014 In FIRST APPEAL NO. 645 of 2014

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

Page 1 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA

================================================================ 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 ? ================================================================ MOHAMMED YUSUF HAJI AHMEDJIBHAI CHANDNIWALA & 2 Versus ABDUL LATIF ABDUL HAKIM IMAM & 2 ================================================================ Appearance: MR R.K.MANSURI, ADVOCATE for the Appellants MR GC MAZMUDAR for the Respondents MR HG MAZMUDAR for the Respondents ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA

Date : 11/03/2014

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.0 As all these First Appeals arise out of the impugned common Page 2 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) and as such, arise out of the common accident, all these First Appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 27.08.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.878/2005, the original opponent No.3 – Insurance Company of Tata Spacio bearing No.GJ-9-M-3619 and Luxury Bus bearing No.PB-10-BD-8273 i.e. New India Assurance Company Limited has preferred First Appeal No.640/2014. That the original claimants of M.A.C.P. No.878/2005 have preferred First Appeal No.24/2014 to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 27.08.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.879/2005, the original opponent No.3 – Insurance Company of Tata Spacio bearing No.GJ-9-M-3619 and Luxury Bus bearing No.PB-10-BD-8273 i.e. New India Assurance Company Limited has preferred First Appeal No.641/2014. That the original claimants of M.A.C.P. No.879/2005 have preferred First Appeal No.25/2014 to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 27.08.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.880/2005, the original opponent No.3 – Insurance Company of Tata Spacio bearing No.GJ-9-M-3619 and Luxury Bus bearing No.PB-10-BD-8273 i.e. New India Assurance Company Limited has preferred First Appeal No.642/2014. That the original claimants of M.A.C.P. No.880/2005 have preferred First Appeal No.26/2014 to enhance the amount of compensation awarded Page 3 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT by the learned Tribunal. 2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 27.08.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.881/2005, the original opponent No.3 – Insurance Company of Tata Spacio bearing No.GJ-9-M-3619 and Luxury Bus bearing No.PB-10-BD-8273 i.e. New India Assurance Company Limited has preferred First Appeal No.643/2014. That the original claimants of M.A.C.P. No.881/2005 have preferred First Appeal No.27/2014 to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 2.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 27.08.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.882/2005, the original claimants have preferred First Appeal No.28/2014 to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 2.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 27.08.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.883/2005, the original No.2 – Insurance company has preferred First Appeal No.644/2014. 2.7 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 27.08.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.884/2005, the original claimants have preferred First Appeal No.29/2014 to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 2.8 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 27.08.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.886 of 2005, the original No.2 – Insurance company has preferred First Appeal No.645/2014. 3.0 The facts leading to the present First Appeals in nutshell are as Page 4 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT under:- 3.1 That on 24.05.2005, the victims in all the claim petitions had gone to Kashmir tour by travelling in Tata Spacio bearing No.GJ-9-M- 3619 driven by deceased driver, owned by the original opponent No.1 and insured with the original opponent No.3 – New India Assurance Company Limited. That on return, when they reached near Village : Tanda, District : Hoshyarpur, Punjab, at that time, at about 6.10 a.m., a Luxury Bus bearing No.PB-10-BD-8273 driven by by the original opponent No.2 rashly and negligently, came from opposite side, dashed with Tata Spacio and caused accident. In the said accident, seven persons died on the spot whereas late Ittefaq Hussain Mohmad Yusuf Chandniwala and Mohmad Zakir Mohmadbhai Idariya were taken to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana where they were treated as indoor patients. Operation was carried out on late Ittefaq Hussain Mohmad Yusuf Chandniwala on 27.05.2005. However, thereafter, in view of serious injuries sustained by him, he succumbed to the injuries on 28.06.2005. 3.2 That the heirs / dependents of the respective deceased, passengers travelling in Tata Spacio bearing No.GJ-9-M-3619 and the injured claimants, as the case may be, preferred respective claim petitions claiming compensation as under :- Sr.No. M.A.C.P. Nos. Fatal Injury / Injury Amount Claimed 1 878/2005 Fatal Injury Rs.35,00,000-00 2 879/2005 Fatal Injury Rs.21,00,000-00 3 880/2005 Fatal Injury Rs.21,00,000-00 4 881/2005 Fatal Injury Rs.21,00,000-00 5 882/2005 Injury Rs.15,00,000-00 6 883/2005 Fatal Injury Rs.08,00,000-00 7 884/2005 Fatal Injury Rs.08,00,000-00 8 885/2005 Injury Rs.08,00,000-00 9 886/2005 Fatal Injury Rs.08,00,000-00 Page 5 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT 3.3 That though duly served, nobody appeared on behalf of the original opponent Nos.1 and 2 – driver / owner of the respective vehicles and they remained absent and did not contest the aforesaid claim petitions. That the common Insurance Company of both the vehicles involved in the accident appeared through its advocate and filed Written Statement at Exh.14 and they took all defences available under the law. That the learned Tribunal framed the issues at Exh.22 in M.A.C.P. No.878/2005 (main), at Exh.19 in M.A.C.P. No.879/2005, at Exh.20 in M.A.C.P. No.880/2005, at Exh.20 in M.A.C.P. No.881/2005, at Exh.19 in M.A.C.P. No.882/2005, at Exh.20 in M.A.C.P. No.883/2005, at Exh.20 in M.A.C.P. No.884/2005, at Exh.20 in M.A.C.P. No.885/2005 and at Exh.17 in M.A.C.P. No.886/2005. 3.4 That all the aforesaid claim petitions were ordered to be consolidated and M.A.C.P. No.878/2005 was treated as main M.A.C.P. Both the sides led evidence in M.A.C.P. No.878/2005 (main). 3.5 That the claimants produced the following documentary evidences during the course of their depositions. Sr.No Particulars Exh. 1 Copy of FIR in vernacular with final report 51 2 Copy of translation of the above FIR in English 52 3 Copy of inquest panchnama of the deceased in MACP No.878/2005 53 4 Copy of translation of the above Inquest Panchnama in Gujarati 54 5 Copy of PM Note of the deceased in MACP No.878/2005 55 6 Copy of death certificate form of CMC College, Ludhiana, Punjab 56 7 CT Scan Report 57 & 59 8 MRI report 58 9 Medical treatment summary report 60 10 Death summary report 61 Page 6 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT 11 Copy of School Leaving Certificate of the deceased in MACP No.878/2005 62 12 Admission Card of CMC Hospital 63 13 Medical bills and receipts 64 14 Copy of MCC certificate of the deceased in MACP No.878/2005 65 15 Copy of MCC certificate (training) of the deceased in the said petition 66 & 67 16 Copy of certificate for participation in volleyball tournament 68 & 69 17 Copy of certificate for participation in hockey tournament 70 18 Copy of certificate for participation in scout 71 19 Enrollment (Sanad) of the deceased in Bar Council 72 20 Certificate of the deceased of Sabarkantha District Bar Association 73 21 Copy of the inquest panchnama of the deceased in MACP No.879/2005 74 22 Copy of translation of the above inquest panchnama in Gujarati 75 23 Copy of the PM Note of the deceased in MACP No.879/2005. 76 24 Copy of the School Leaving Certificate of the deceased in MACP No.879/2005 77 25 Copy of inquest panchnama of the deceased in MACP No.880/2005 78 26 Copy of translation of the above inquest panchnama in Gujarati 79 27 Copy of PM Note of the deceased in MACP No.880/2005 80 28 Copy of School Leaving Certificate of the deceased in MACP No.880/2005 81 29 Copy of mark sheets of the deceased from Std. I to XII in MACP No.880/2005 82 to 93 30 Copy of mark sheets of the deceased from F.Y. to T.Y. B.Pharm in MACP No.880/2005 94 to 96 31 Certificates of Gujarat Vidhyapith issued to the deceased in MACP No.880/2005 97 & 98 32 Certificate received by the deceased for extra activities in MACP No.880/2005 99 to 104 Page 7 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT 33 Copy of inquest panchnama of the deceased in MACP No.881/2005 105 34 Copy of translation of the above inquest panchnama in Gujarati 106 35 Copy of PM Note of the deceased in MACP No.881/2005 107 36 Copy of School Leaving Certificate of the deceased in MACP No.881/2005 108 37 Copy of discharge summary of the applicant in MACP No.882/2005 109 38 CT Scan Report of the applicant in MACP No.882/2005 110 39 MRI report of the applicant in MACP No.882/2005 111 40 Medical bills of the applicant 112 41 X-ray report, CT scan report, MRI reports of the applicant 113 to 121 42 Case paper of the applicant, of Neuron-Surgical hospital 122 43 Medical bills of the applicant 123 44 X-ray report 124 45 Medical bill 125 46 Copy of inquest panchnama of the deceased in MACP No.883/2005 126 47 Copy of translation of the above inquest panchnama in Gujarati 127 48 Copy of PM Note of the deceased in MACP No.883/2005 128 49 Copy of School Leaving Certificate of the deceased in MACP No.883/2005 129 50 Copy of mark sheet of B.Com of the deceased in MACP No.884/2005 130 51 Copy of inquest panchnama of the deceased in MACP No.884/2005 131 52 Copy of translation of the above inquest panchnama in Gujarati 132 53 Copy of PM Note of the deceased in MACP No.883/2005 133 54 Copy of death certificate given by Sub-Divisional Magistrate 134 Page 8 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT 55 Copy of driving license of the deceased in MACP No.883/2005 135 56 Copy of inquest panchnama of the deceased in MACP No.885/2005 136 57 Copy of translation of the above inquest panchnama in Gujarati 137 58 Copy of PM Note of the deceased in MACP No.885/2005 138 59 Copy of School Leaving Certificate of the deceased in MACP No.885/2005 139 60 Mark-sheet of the deceased of Std. X in MACP No.885/2005 140 61 Mark-sheet of the deceased of Std.XII in MACP No.885/2005 141 62 Certificates received by the deceased in MACP No.885/2005 142 & 143 63 B.Com & M.Com mark-sheets of the deceased in the said petition. 144 & 145 64 Copy of inquest panchnama of the deceased in MACP No.886/2005 146 65 Copy of translation of the above inquest panchnama in Gujarati 147 66 Copy of PM Note of the deceased in MACP No.886/2005 148 67 Copy of School Leaving Certificate of the deceased in MACP No.886/2005 149 68 Mark-sheet of the deceased of Std. X in MACP No.886/2005 150 69 Mark-sheet of the deceased of Std. XII in MACP No.886/2005 151 70 Certificates of B.Com & LL.B of the deceased in the said petition 152 & 153 71 Mark-sheet of the deceased for B.Com in MACP No.886/2005. 154 72 Copy of Income-Tax Return of the petitioners for A.Y. 2004 – 2005 155 73 Copy of balance sheet 156 & 158 74 Copy of Income-Tax Return of the petitioners for A.Y.2005-2006 157 75 Boarding passes 159 to 161 & 163 Page 9 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT 76 Air tickets 162 & 164 to 170 77 Copy of Income-Tax Return of the firm of the deceased for A.Y.2004-2005 in MACP No.879/2005 171 78 Copy of receipt for payment of income-tax 172 79 Copy of Income-Tax Return of firm of the deceased for A.Y. 2003-2004 in MACP No.879/2005 173 80 Copy of receipt for payment of income tax 174 81 Copy of registration certificate of sales tax 175 82 Copy of challan for sales tax 176 83 Copy of registration certificate of sales tax 177 84 Copy of order for cancellation of sales tax 178 85 Copy of balance sheet for the year 2003-2004 179 86 Copy of balance sheet for the year 2004-2005 180 87 Copy of Form No.2D of Gujarat Marketing 181 88 Copy of Form No.49A of Gujarat Marketing 182 89 Copy of balance sheet of Gujarat Marketing 183 90 Copy of salary certificate of the deceased in MACP No.881/2005 184 91 Copy of order of sales tax of the applicant No.1 – MACP No.881/2005 185 92 Copy of registration certificate of Gujarat Marketing 186 93 Copy of salary certificate of the deceased in MACP No.883/2005 187 94 Copy of salary certificate of the deceased in MACP No.884/2005 188 95 Copy of permit obtained by employer of the deceased in MACP No.884/2005 189 96 Copy of passenger list for getting permit 190 97 Copy of register maintained by the deceased in MACP No.885/2005 191 98 Copy of Form No.2D of the petitions 192 99 Copy of profit & loss account 193 100 Disability certificate of the applicant of MACP No.882/2005 206 101 Air tickets for return journey 207 Page 10 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT 102 Copy of insurance policy of luxury bus No.PB-10- BD-8273 208 103 Copy of insurance policy of jeep – Chassis No.918100 209 3.6 On behalf of the claimants of M.A.C.P. No.878/2005, the original claimant No.1 came to be examined at Ex.33. He was cross-examined by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company. 3.7 On behalf of the claimants of M.A.C.P. No.879/2005, the original claimant No.1 came to be examined at Ex.34. He was cross-examined by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company. 3.8 On behalf of the claimants of M.A.C.P. No.880/2005, the original claimant No.1 came to be examined at Ex.35. He was cross-examined by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company. 3.9 On behalf of the claimants of M.A.C.P. No.881/2005, the original applicant No.1 came to be examined at Ex.36. He was cross- examined by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company. 3.10 On behalf of the claimants of M.A.C.P. No.882/2005, the original applicant came to be examined at Ex.43. He was cross-examined by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company. 3.11 On behalf of the claimants of M.A.C.P. No.883/2005, the original applicant came to be examined at Ex.37. He was cross-examined by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company. 3.12 On behalf of the claimants of M.A.C.P. No.884/2005, the wife of the deceased, original applicant No.1 came to be examined at Ex.38. She was cross-examined by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company. 3.13 On behalf of the claimants of M.A.C.P. No.885/2005, the original applicant No.1 came to be examined at Ex.39. He was cross- Page 11 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT examined by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company. 3.14 On behalf of the claimants of M.A.C.P. No.886/2005, the original applicant No.1 came to be examined at Ex.40. He was cross- examined by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company. 4.0 That on appreciation of evidence and while answering issue No.1, learned Tribunal has held the driver of Luxury Bus No.PB-10-BD- 8273 negligent to the extent of 80% and the driver of Tata Spacio No.GJ-9-M-3619 negligent to the extent of 20%. Consequently, the Tribunal has held that the accident resulted out of contributory negligence as far as M.A.C.P. No.884/2005 is concerned and as a result of composite negligence as far as rest of the claim petitions are concerned. 5.0 By impugned common judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the aforesaid claim petitions awarding compensation as under:- Sr.No M.A.C.P.Nos. Amount awarded by the Tribunal 1. 878/2005 20,12,600-00 2. 879/2005 19,50,500-00 3. 880/2005 06,31,600-00 4. 881/2005 06,00,400-00 5. 882/2005 04,03,400-00 6. 883/2005 06,31,600-00 7. 884/2005 05,37,500-00 8. 885/2005 06,36,600-00 9. 886/2005 06,31,600-00 6.0 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the Insurance Company as well as original claimants have preferred these First Appeals, particulars of which are as under:- Page 12 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT Sr.No MACP Nos. Insurance Company’s Appeal Claimant’s Appeal 1 878/2005 640/2014 24/2014 2 879/2005 641/2014 25/2014 3 880/2005 642/2014 26/2014 4 881/2005 643/2014 27/2014 5 882/2005 x 28/2014 6 883/2005 644/2014 x 7 884/2005 X 29/2014 8 885/2005 x x 9 886/2005 645/2014 x FIRST APPEAL NO.640/2014 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.24/2014:- 7.0 Both these First Appeals arise out of M.A.C.P.No.878/2005 and it is a case of fatal accident. First Appeal No.640/2014 has been preferred by the Insurance Company of both the vehicles involved and First Appeal No.24/2014 has been preferred by the original claimants to enhance the amount of compensation. At the time of accident / death, the deceased was aged about 27 years as per Ex.62. It has come on record that the income of the deceased at the relevant time was Rs.8,500/- per month. That further adding 30% of prospective income i.e. Rs.2,550/-, the learned Tribunal has considered dependency of Rs.11,050/- per month and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal has considered dependency for the purpose of future economical loss at Rs.88,400/- per annum (Rs.7,366/- per month) and applying multiplier of 17, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,02,800/- towards future economical loss. Considering the documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,39,800/- under the head of medical expenses, Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.50,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. Thus, in all, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation at Page 13 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT Rs.20,12,600/-. 7.1 Mr.H.G. Mazmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in deducting only 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is submitted that considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and looking to the number of dependents, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 50%. 7.2 Mr.R. K. Mansuri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has vehemently submitted that learned Tribunal has materially erred in adding 30% towards prospective income. It is submitted that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the learned Tribunal ought to have added 50% of the income of the deceased as prospective income and, thereafter, deducting 50% towards personal expenses, the dependency comes to Rs.6,375/- per month. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate. It is submitted that considering the fact that the deceased survived for some time and he was required to be admitted and, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered Rs.50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in not holding the amount towards attendance and special diets etc. It is submitted that as the deceased was hospitalized and survived for 26 days, the claimants shall be entitled to at least Rs.26,000/- towards attendance and special diets. Making above submissions, it is requested to pass appropriate orders. 7.3 Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and considered the entire evidence on record oral as well as documentary.

Page 14 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT 7.4 At the outset, it is required to be noted that at the time of death, the deceased was aged about 27 years. He was engaged in a legal profession. His income has been considered at Rs.8,500/- per month by the learned Tribunal which is not challenged by learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. Considering the age of the deceased – 27 years and as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), 50% of the income is required to be added as prospective income. Therefore, the income for the purpose of compensation under the head of future economical loss would come to Rs.12,750/- per month. Considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and number of dependents, 50% amount is required to be deducted and, therefore, the dependency for the purpose of awarding future economical loss would come to Rs.6,375/- per month i.e. Rs.76,500/- per annum. Applying multiplier of 17, the claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.13,00,500/- under the head of future economical loss against the amount of Rs.15,02,800/- awarded by the learned Tribunal. The claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.4,39,800/- towards medical expenses. The claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.25,000/- under the head of loss of estate, Rs.50,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. As the deceased survived for approximately 26 days and he was hospitalized and, thereafter he succumbed to be injuries, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering and the claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.26,000/- towards attendance and special diets. Thus, in all, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.18,86,300/- i.e. Rs.18,90,000/- - rounded figure. Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.18,90,000/- under different heads as under :- Sr.No Amount (Rs.) Different Heads 1 Rs.13,00,500-00 Future economical Loss 2 Rs. 25,000-00 Loss of Estate 3 Rs. 50,000-00 Transportation and funeral Page 15 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT expenses etc. 4 Rs. 4,39,800-00 Medical expenses 5 Rs. 26,000-00 Attendance and special diets etc. 6 Rs. 50,000-00 Pain, shock and suffering Rs.18,86,300-00 Rs.18,90,000-00

round figure Total Amount The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,12,600/-. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.878/2005 is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent. Consequently, First Appeal No.640/2014 preferred by the Insurance Company is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent and First Appeal No.254/2014 preferred by the original claimants is required to be dismissed. FIRST APPEAL NO.641/2014 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.25/2014:- 8.0 Both these First Appeals arise out of M.A.C.P.No.879/2005. First Appeal No.641/2014 has been preferred by the Insurance Company of both the vehicles involved and First Appeal No.25/2014 has been preferred by the original claimants to enhance the amount of compensation. That by impugned judgment and award, learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.19,50,472/- under different heads which are as under:- Rs.18,80,472/- Future loss of dependency Rs. 20,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 50,000/- Transportation & funeral expenses -------------------- Rs.19,50,472/- Total ========= 8.1 That, the deceased, at the relevant time, was aged about 26 years as per Ex.72. His income is assessed by the learned Tribunal at Rs.10,636/- per month, which is not challenged by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. That the Page 16 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT learned Tribunal has added 30% towards prospective income and has considered dependency at Rs.13,827/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased i.e. Rs.4,609/-, the learned Tribunal has considered dependency of future economical loss at Rs.1,10,616/- per annum (Rs.9,218/- per month) and applying multiplier of 17, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.18,80,472/- under the head of future economical loss. 8.2 Mr.Mazmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has vehemently submitted that learned Tribunal has materially erred in deducting only 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is submitted that considering number of dependents and as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% and, thereafter, ought to have awarded future economical loss accordingly. 8.3 On the other hand, Mr.Mansuri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has stated that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in adding only 30% towards prospective income. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the learned Tribunal ought to have added 50% towards prospective income. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding only Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate. It is submitted that the claimants shall be entitled at least Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate. 8.4 Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. We have perused the impugned common judgment and award and oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. 8.5 At the outset, it is required to be noted that at the relevant time, the deceased was aged about 26 years. His income is assessed Page 17 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT at Rs.10636/- per month which is not challenged by learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. Looking to the age of deceased, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), 50% amount was required to be added towards prospective income which would come to Rs.5,318/-. That, thereafter, further deducting 50% (even as agreed by learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties), the dependency would come to Rs.7,977/- per month (Rs.95,724/- per annum) and applying multiplier of 17, the claimants shall be entitled to total sum of Rs.16,27,308/- under the head of future economical loss. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.25,000/-, under the head of loss of estate and Rs.50,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.17,02,308/- towards compensation, against which the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.19,50,472/-. Thus, the impugned judgment and award passed in M.A.C.P. No.879/2005 is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent. Consequently, First Appeal No.641/2014 preferred by the Insurance Company is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent and First Appeal No.25/2014 preferred by the original claimants is required to be dismissed. FIRST APPEAL NO.642/2014 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.26/2014:- 9.0 Both these First Appeals arise out of impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.880/2005. That the learned Tribunal has awarded total sum of Rs.6,31,600/- towards compensation under different head as under:- Rs.5,61,600/- Future loss of dependency Rs. 20,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 50,000/- Transportation & funeral expenses. ------------------ Rs.6,31,600/- Total ======== Page 18 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT 9.1 That at the relevant time, deceased was aged about 20 years as per Ex.81. His income is assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month which is not challenged by learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. That adding 30% in the prospective income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has considered dependency of Rs.3,900/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency considered Rs.2600/- per month (Rs.31,200/- per annum) and applying 18 multiplier, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,61,600/- under the head of future economical loss. 9.2 Mr.Mazmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is submitted that considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Tribunal was required to be deducted 50% towards prospective income and, thereafter, future economical loss was required to be considered. 9.3 On the other hand, Mr.Mansuri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has submitted that looking to the age of the deceased, learned Tribunal ought to have added 50% of future prospective income and thereafter ought to have awarded the future economical loss. It is submitted that learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding only Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate. It is submitted that as such, the learned Tribunal ought to have been awarded at least Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate. 9.4 Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and considered the entire evidence on record oral as well as documentary.

9.5 At the outset, it is required to be noted that at the relevant Page 19 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT time, the deceased was aged about 20 years as per Ex.81. His income has been considered at Rs.3,000/- per month by the learned Tribunal which is not challenged by learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. Looking to the age of the deceased and as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the learned Tribunal was required to be added 50% towards prospective income and, thereafter, deducted 50%, the dependency would come to Rs.4,500/- per month. Looking to the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 18 is required to be applied and consequently, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.9,72,000/- under the head of future economical loss. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.50,000/- towards transportation and funeral charges to which the claimants shall be entitled to total sum of Rs.10,47,000/-, whereas the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,31,600/- towards compensation. Thus, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.880/2005 is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent. Consequently, First Appeal No.26/2014 preferred by the original claimants is required to be partly allowed and First Appeal No.642/2014 preferred by the Insurance Company is required to be dismissed. FIRST APPEAL NO.643/2014 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.27/2014:- 10.0 Both these First Appeals arise out of impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.881/2005. First Appeal No.643/2014 has been preferred by the Insurance Company and First Appeal No.27/2014 has been preferred by the original claimants to enhance the amount of compensation. 10.1 By impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,00,400/- towards compensation under different head as under:- Page 20 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT Rs.5,30,400/- Future loss of dependency Rs. 20,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 50,000/- Transportation & Funeral Expenses ____________ Rs.6,00,400/- Total ======== 10.2 That, at the relevant time, the deceased was aged about 27 years as per Ex.108. His income was Rs.3,000/- per month. Adding 30% towards prospective income and thereafter deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has considered dependency of Rs.2,600/- per month and by applying multiplier of 17, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,30,400/- under the head of future economical loss. 10.3 Mr.Mazmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs.6,00,400/- towards compensation. 10.4 Mr.Mansuri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has vehemently submitted that learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering income of deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. It is submitted that considering the salary certificate produced at Ex.184 and the depositions of the employer with whom the deceased serving at Ex.197, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased at least Rs.7,500/- per month. It is submitted that thereafter further adding 50% of prospective income and thereafter, deducting 50%, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered dependency at Rs.5,625/- per month and applying multiplier of 17, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.11,47,500/- under the head of future economical loss. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate. It is submitted that as such, the claimants Page 21 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT shall be entitled to in all Rs.12,22,500/- towards compensation. 10.5 Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and considered the entire evidence on record oral as well as documentary.

10.6 At the outset, it is required to be noted that at the time, the deceased was aged about 27 years as per Ex.108. It has come on record that he was serving with one Imam Brothers. To prove the income / salary, the employer has been examined at Ex.197. As per salary certificate at Ex.184, the income of the deceased was Rs.7,500/- per month. Under the circumstances, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and looking to the age of the deceased – 27 years, 50% of the aforesaid income is required to be added as prospective income which would come to Rs.3,750/- per month. Deducting 50% (even as admitted by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants), the dependency would come to Rs.5,625/- per month and applying multiplier of 17, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.11,47,500/- under the head of future economical loss. The claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.50,000/- towards transportation and funeral charges. Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to in all Rs.12,22,500/- towards compensation against the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal at Rs.6,00,400/-. Thus, to the aforesaid extent, the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.881/2005 is required to be modified. Consequently, First Appeal No.27/2014 preferred by the original claimants is required to be partly allowed and First Appeal No.643/2014 preferred by the Insurance Company is required to be dismissed. FIRST APPEAL NO.28/2014:- Page 22 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT 11.0 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.882/2005, the original claimants have preferred present First Appeal No.28/2014. That the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,03,400/- under different heads as under:- Rs.1,71,400/- Future loss of income Rs. 10,000/- Pain, shock and suffering Rs.2,00,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 12,000/- Actual loss of income Rs. 10,000/- Special diet, attendance, transportation etc. ------------------ Rs.4,03,400/- Total ======== 11.1 Mr.Mansuri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has submitted that learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the income of the injured claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the injured – claimant at Rs.4,000/- per month. It is submitted that considering 28% disability, learned Tribunal ought to have awarded future economical loss of Rs.1,120/- per month and applied multiplier of 17, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.2,28,480/- under the head of future economical loss. It is submitted that looking to the injury sustained by the original claimant and as the claimant remained in hospital in Punjab for 24 days and, thereafter, till the year 2006, he was taking treatment, the claimant shall be entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. It is submitted that the claimant was also entitled to Rs.24,000/- toward special diets, attendance, transportation charges etc. It is submitted that thus, the claimant shall be entitled to Rs.5,08,480/- towards compensation. 11.2 Mr.Mazmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has submitted that in the facts and Page 23 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs.4,03,400/- awarded by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be lower side and it is said to be a just compensation. It is requested to dismiss the present First Appeal. 11.3 Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and considered the entire evidence on record oral as well as documentary.

11.4 At the outset, it is required to be noted that at the relevant time, the age of injured – claimant was 27 years. He has suffered 28% permanent partial disability. The learned Tribunal has considered the income of the injured at Rs.3,000/- per month. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the material available on record, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation under the head of future economical loss considering the income of Rs.3,000/- per month and the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income at Rs.4,000/- per month. Considering the permanent partial disability of 28%, the loss suffered to the claimant shall be Rs.1,120/- per month and applying the multiplier of 17, the claimant shall be entitled to Rs.2,28,480 under the head of future economical loss. 11.5 Considering the fact that the claimant sustained serious injuries and he was in hospital for 24 days and, thereafter, at least still 2006 he was taking treatment, the claimant shall be entitled to Rs.40,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs.16,000/- towards actual loss of income instead of Rs.12,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal. Considering the fact that the claimant remained in hospital at Punjab for 24 days, the claimant shall be entitled to Rs.1,000/- per day towards special diets and attendance i.e. Rs.24,000/-. Thus, the claimant shall be entitled to in all Rs.5,08,480/- towards compensation against the amount of Rs.4,03,400/- awarded by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the appeal Page 24 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT preferred by the original claimant is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent and the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in First Appeal No.28/2014 is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. FIRST APPEAL NO.644/2014:- 12.0 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.883/2005, the Insurance Company has preferred present First Appeal No.644/2014. That the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,31,600/- under different heads as under:- Rs.5,61,600/- Future loss of dependency Rs. 20,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 50,000/- Transportation & Funeral expenses. ------------------ Rs.6,31,600/- Total ======== 12.1 Mr.Mazmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs.5,61,600/- under the head of future economical loss. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs.6,31,600/- towards compensation to the claimants. 12.2 On the other hand, Mr.Mansuri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has vehemently submitted that as such, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on a lower side. It is submitted that as such, the learned Tribunal has considered income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. It is submitted that looking to the evidence on record, the income of the deceased was required to be assessed at Rs.4,000/- per month. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in adding 30% towards Page 25 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT prospective income. It is submitted that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and looking to the age of deceased i.e. 21 years, the learned Tribunal was required to be added 50% towards prospective income. It is submitted that deducting 50% from the aforesaid and applying multiplier of 18 the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.6,48,000/- towards future economical loss, however, the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,61,600/- under the head of future economical loss. It is, therefore, requested to dismiss the present First Appeal. 12.3 Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and considered the entire evidence on record, oral as well as documentary. 12.4 At the outset, it is required to be noted that at the time of death, the deceased was aged about 21 years. He was serving as a teacher and considering to the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income of Rs.4,000/- per month. It is not appreciatable how the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of Rs.3,000/- per month. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and looking to the age of 21 years of the deceased, 50% of the aforesaid income was required to be added as prospective income and thereafter deducting 50% (considering number of dependents) and applying multiplier of 18, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.6,48,000/- under the head of future economical loss, against which the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,61,600/-. As such, the claimants are entitled to more amount than the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. However, the claimants have not preferred any appeal nor any cross-objection. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in awarding Rs.6,31,600/- and/or the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on higher side. Under the circumstances, no interference is called for Page 26 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT by this Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. FIRST APPEAL NO.29/2014:- 13.0 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.884/2005 awarding Rs.5,16,600/- and after deducting 20% as the driver / deceased is held negligent to the extent of 20% in awarding Rs.6,31,600/-, the original claimants have preferred the present First Appeal to enhance the amount of compensation. 13.1 By impugned common judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,71,700/- under different heads as under:- Rs.5,96,700/- Future loss of dependency Rs. 20,000/- Loss of estate and consortium Rs. 50,000/- Transportation & Funeral Expenses ------------------- Rs.6,71,700/- Total Rs.1,34,340/- sliced down for 20% negligent Rs.5,35,500/- Total Awarded 13.2 Mr.Mansuri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. It is submitted that considering the deposition of employer Jitendrakumar Rathod, Ex.203 and the salary certificate at Ex.188 showing income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in adding 30% towards prospective income. It is submitted that looking to the age of the deceased – 30 years, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), 50% of the income is required to be added as prospective income and, thereafter further Page 27 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency ought to have considered at Rs.4,500/- per month. It is submitted that therefore, applying multiplier of 17, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.9,18,000/- under the head of future economical loss. It is submitted that the claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.50,000/- towards transportation and funeral charges. By making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present First Appeal to the aforesaid extent. 13.3 Mr.Mazmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, while opposing the present First Appeal, has vehemently submitted that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just compensation and the same is not required to be interfered by this Court. It is, therefore, requested to dismiss the present First Appeal. 13.4 Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and considered the entire evidence on record, oral as well as documentary. 13.5 At the outset, it is required to be noted that at the relevant time, the deceased driver was aged about 30 years. He is held negligent to the extent of 20%. As per the deposition of the employer Jitendrakumar Rathod examined at Ex.203 and the salary certificate produced at Ex.188, the income of the deceased was Rs.4,000/- per month. Under the circumstances, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in considering the income of the deceased driver at Rs.3,000/- per month. Looking to the age of the deceased – 30 years, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), further 50% is required to be added towards prospective income. Deducting 1/4th i.e. Rs.4,500/- per month by applying multiplier of 17, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.9,18,000/- towards future economical loss. The claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.50,000/- Page 28 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT towards transportation and funeral expenses etc. Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.9,93,000/- as the deceased driver is held contributory negligent to the extent of 20% and after deducting 20%, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.7,94,400/-. Thus, the present First Appeal is required to be allowed to the aforesaid extent and the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.884/2005 is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent. FIRST APPEAL NO.645/2014:- 14.0 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.886/2005, the Insurance Company have preferred present First Appeal No.645/2014. That the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,31,600/- under different heads as under:- Rs.5,61,600/- Dependency Rs. 20,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 50,000/- Transportation & funeral expenses. ------------------ Rs.6,31,600/- Total ======== 14.1 Mr.Mazmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs.5,61,600/- under the head of future economical loss. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs.6,31,600/- towards compensation to the claimants. 14.2 On the other hand, Mr.Mansuri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has vehemently submitted that as such, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on a lower side. It is submitted that as such, the learned Tribunal has considered income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. It is submitted that Page 29 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT looking to the evidence on record, the income of the deceased was required to be assessed at Rs.4,000/- per month. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in adding 30% towards prospective income. It is submitted that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and looking to the age of deceased i.e. 21 years, the learned Tribunal was required to be added 50% towards prospective income. It is submitted that after deducting 50% from the aforesaid and applying multiplier of 18, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.6,48,000/- towards future economical loss, however, the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,61,600/- under the aforesaid head. It is, therefore, requested to dismiss the present First Appeal. 14.3 Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and considered the entire evidence on record oral as well as documentary.

14.4 At the outset, it is required to be noted that at the time of death, the deceased was aged about 21 years. He was serving as a teacher and looking to the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income of Rs.4,000/- per month. It is not appreciatable how the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of Rs.3,000/- per month. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and looking to the age of 21 years of the deceased, 50% of the aforesaid income was required to be added as prospective income and thereafter deducted 50% (considering number of dependents) and applying multiplier of 18, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.6,48,000/- under the head of future economical loss, against which the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,61,600/-. As such, the claimants are entitled to more amount than the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. However, the claimants have not preferred any appeal nor any cross- objection. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in awarding Rs.6,31,600/- and/or Page 30 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on higher side. Under the circumstances, no interference is called for by this Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 15.0 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, First Appeal No.640/2014 preferred by the Insurance Company is hereby partly allowed and consequently, First Appeal No.24/2014 preferred by the original claimants is hereby dismissed. The impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal passed in M.A.C.P. No.878/2005 is modified to the aforesaid extent holding that the claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.18,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon from the date of application till realization. 15.1 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, First Appeal No.641/2014 preferred by the Insurance Company is hereby partly allowed and consequently, First Appeal No.25/2014 preferred by the original claimants is hereby dismissed. The impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal passed in M.A.C.P. No.879/2005 is modified to the aforesaid extent holding that the claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.17,02,308/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon from the date of application till realization. 15.2 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, First Appeal No.26/2014 preferred by the original claimants is hereby partly allowed and consequently, First Appeal No.642/2014 preferred by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. The impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal passed in M.A.C.P. No.880/2005 is modified to the aforesaid extent holding that the claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,47,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon from the date of application till realization. Page 31 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT 15.3 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, First Appeal No.27/2014 preferred by the original claimants is hereby partly allowed and consequently, First Appeal No.643/2014 preferred by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. The impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal passed in M.A.C.P. No.881/2005 is modified to the aforesaid extent holding that the claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.12,22,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon from the date of application till realization. 15.4 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, First Appeal No.28/2014 preferred by the original claimants is hereby partly allowed. The impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal passed in M.A.C.P. No.882/2005 is modified to the aforesaid extent holding that the claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.5,08,480/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon from the date of application till realization. 15.5 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, First Appeal No.644/2014 preferred by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. The impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal passed in M.A.C.P. No.883/2005 is confirmed. 15.6 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, First Appeal No.29/2014 preferred by the original claimants is hereby partly allowed. The impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal passed in M.A.C.P. No.884/2005 is modified to the aforesaid extent holding that the claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.7,94,400/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon from the date of application till realization. 15.7 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, First Appeal No.645/2014 preferred by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. The impugned common judgment and award passed by Page 32 of 33

C/FA/24/2014 JUDGMENT the learned Tribunal passed in M.A.C.P. No.886/2005 is confirmed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 15.8 In view of the order passed in aforesaid First Appeals, all Civil Applications stand disposed of accordingly. (M.R.SHAH, J.) (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.)

vijay Page 33 of 33