1. By way of First Appeals No. 1039 & 172 of 2003 and 5190 of 2006, the appellants have challenged the judgement and award dated 22.03.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P Nos. 747, 748 & 1207 of 1994 whereby the Tribunal directed the original opponents to jointly pay compensation of Rs. 312000/-, Rs. 312000/- & Rs. 21,000/- respectively with interest and proportionate costs.
2. The aforesaid claim petitions arose out of an accident which occurred on 01.05.1994 when Shri Hitendrasinh, Shri Mahendrasinh and the claimant of Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1207 of 1994 were standing on the side of the road. At that time, a truck bearing registration no. GJ-12-T 6942 being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner hit the three persons. Shri Hitendrasinh and Shri Mahendrasinh sustained fatal injuries and therefore the legal heirs filed claim petitions being Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 747 & 748 of 1994 and the injured claimant filed Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1207 of 1994. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Mr. K.P. Raval, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased's monthly income in Motor Accident Claims Petitions No. 747 & 748 of 1994. He submitted that in these two petitions the Tribunal also erred in deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses when it ought to have been 1/4th.
3.1 Mr. Raval submitted that in the case of Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1207 of 1994 is concerned, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under future loss of income. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the injuries sustained by the appellant and ought to have granted some amount under the said head.
4. Mr. Sunil Parikh, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Mehta for the respondent insurance company supported the award and submitted that no interference is called for. He submitted that as far as Motor Accident Claims Petitions No. 747 & 748 of 1994 are concerned, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased. He submitted that in fact no disability certificate was produced by the claimants as far as Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1207 of 1994 is concerned and therefore the submission of learned advocate for the appellants cannot be accepted.
5. Before proceeding further it is required to be noted that the issues with regard to deduction by way of personal expenses and multiplier are already settled by the decisions of Apex Court. In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 it is held as under:
“Where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family numbers is 2 to 3, one- fourth (1/4th), where the number of Dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of Dependant family members exceed six.
Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parents/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a Dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be Dependant on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a Dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and Dependant on the income of the deceased, as in the case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non- earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.
The multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M- 17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M- 13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M- 9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”
6. In the case of Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 747 & 748 of 1994, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 30000/- per annum. Nothing is pointed out to take a different figure in that regard. The Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd towards their personal expenses. In view of the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), 1/4th of the income is required to be deduced qua personal expenses which comes to Rs. 22500/- in both the cases. Considering the age of the claimants in both the cases, the Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier of 18 instead of 15 which is on lower side. Accordingly, the future loss of income shall come to Rs. 4,05,000/-. Rs. 25000/- is also required to be awarded towards conventional expenses. In all the claimants are entitled to Rs. 4,30,000/- as total compensation in each case. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 312000/- and therefore the claimants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 1,18,000/- in each case.
6.1 As far as Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1207 of 1994 is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant at Rs. 1500/- per month in absence of any documentary evidence. The Tribunal has rightly not assessed the future loss of income as no disability certificate was exhibited or proved. Rest of the amounts awarded are just and proper and do not call for any interference by this Court. Appeal therefore deserves to be dismissed.
7. In the premises aforesaid, First Appeals no. 1039 of 2003 & 5190 of 2006 are partly allowed. The appellants of First Appeals No. 1039 of 2003 & 5190 of 2006 shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 1,18,000/- each alongwith interest at 7.5% from the date of application till realisation. First Appeal No. 172 of 2003 is dismissed. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//