1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 07.09.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 440 of 1995 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 117000/ with running interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realization.
2.0 On 24.12.1994 Mohamed Ibrahim was going from Vadodara to Sersa for taking eggs who was working with the Tats Tempo No. GQB 6932. The vehicle was driven in an excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner by the driver. When the said tempo reached near Vishwanath Petrol Pump, one Tanker No. GJ 1 T. 4636 came from opposite direction with excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner collied with each other. As a result of which, Mohamed sustained grievous injuries and died during the treatment on 27.12.1994. The parents of the deceased therefore, filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal wherein the aforesaid award came to be passed. Hence the present appeal has been filed at the instance of the claimant for enhancement.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in not assessing the income of the deceased as per the oral and documentary evidence on record i.e. Rs. 2000/ per month at the time of accident and Rs. 4000/ per month as future prospective income; that amount of Rs. 10000/ towards pain, shock and suffering is on lower side; that Rs. 15000/ ought to have been awarded towards pain, shock and suffering; that amount of Rs. 10000/ towards the head of loss of estate is on lower side; that it should be Rs. 15000/ towards the head of loss of estate.
4.0 Learned advocate for the respondent supported that the judgement and award of the learned Tribunal and submitted that income assessed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and the amount awarded towards the other heads are also just and proper.
5.0 Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents on record.
6.0 As far is income is concerned, there is no cogent, reliable evidence with respect to the income. In that view of the matter by considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the notional income of Rs. 15000/ per annum and thereby calculated the prospective income of Rs. 22500/ which is just and proper. Since the parents are the claimants, by deducting ½ towards personal and living expenses as per principles laid down in case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, the dependency loss would come to Rs. 11250/ per annum. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 12 which is on lower side. Considering age of the mother as 46 years, 13 multiplier ought to have been applied.
By applying multiplier of 13 years in view of the principles laid down in case of Sarla Verma (supra), the future loss of income would come to Rs.146250/. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 90000/ which is on lower side. Therefore, the appellants are entitled an additional amount of Rs. 56250/ ( Rs. 146250/ Rs. 90000/).
7.0 Further, the amount of Rs. 10000/ towards loss of estate, Rs.
10000/ towards pain, shock and suffering and Rs. 5000/ towards medical bill are just and proper. However, the amount of Rs. 2000/ towards funeral expenses is on lower side. It should be Rs. 5000/. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 3000/ under the head of funeral expenses.
8.0 In the premises aforesaid, it is held that claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 176250/ ( Rs. 146250/ towards future loss of income + Rs. 10,000/ loss to the estate + Rs. 5000 for funeral expenses + Rs. 10000/ towards pain, shock and suffering + Rs. 5000/ towards medical bills). However, the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 117000/. Therefore, it is held that the appellant shall be entitled to a further sum of Rs.59250/ in addition to the amount already awarded to them by the Tribunal. However, the interest on this additional amount will be only 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*