1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 23.10.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 563 of 1998 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of 3,51,300/ along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realization.
2.0 On 30.05.1998 when Nazirbhai at about 10.30 a.m was going to his contract work of polishing at the house of one Rashidbhai Pathan in Haranwali Pole and waiting for other labourers at Kalidas Mills Kachcha cross roads near the lavatory with the bicycle, one A.M.T.S. Bus No. GJ 1IT8337 came there with an excessive speed in a rash and negligent manner in the one way and hit Nazirbhai with its front portion and knocked him down and caused injuries and he was crushed under the wheel of his bicycles. The other labourers sustained injuries and Nazirbhai succumbed to the injuries on 30.05.1998. The legal heirs of the deceased therefore filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has passed the aforesaid award.
3.0 Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal has committed error in assessing the income on the basis of the Schedule. He submitted that in this case there is no income. The accident is of the year 1988. Therefore, Rs. 15,000/ should have been assessed as income on the basis of Second Schedule. According to him, the learned Tribunal has committed error in doubling and assessing the income on the basis of Rs. 22, 500/. Therefore, if Rs.
15000/ per year should have been income and 1/3rd deduction would come to Rs. 10000/. The multiplier applied is 18 it will come to Rs. 1,80,000/. He also submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in awarding the higher amount.
4.0 However, learned advocate for the respondent has contended that income assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper. He submitted that the deduction should be 1/3rd instead of 1/5th and the multiplier of 20 is just and proper. He submitted that nothing is paid under the funeral expenses.
5.0 Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The contention raised that the assessment of Ra. 20500 is on higher side is required to be accepted. Since the claim petition is filed under Section 163A of the Act, it should be 15000/ per year. In view of decision in case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121., more particularly in paragraph No.30, 1/3rd should be deducted and 18 multiplier is just and proper. By deduction 1/5th it would come to Rs. 12000/ per year and by applying 18 multiplier it would come to Rs. 2, 16, 000/. Therefore, claimants are entitled to Rs. 2, 16, 000. Hence The learned Tribunal has committed error in awarding Rs. 84,000/ under this head.
6.0 Rs. 20, 000/ towards loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 5, 000/ towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs. 500/ for medical expenses, Rs. 500/ towards attendant charges, Rs. 300/. towards transportation charges. Rs. 25000/ awarded by the Tribunal, towards loss of consortium is on higher side.
7.0 However, the claimants will be entitled to sum of Rs. 10000/ under the head of 'loss of estate' and Rs. 5000/ towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/ for loss of consortium as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in case of Smt. Sarla Verma ( Supra).
8.0 The claimant has filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Considering the income at Rs.15,000/ per year, 1/5th will have to be deducted towards personal expenses which would come to Rs.3000/ per month and therefore the dependency benefit comes to Rs.12000/ per year. By applying 18 multiplier, the future loss of income would come to Rs.2,16,000/.
9.0 On the facts of the case a sum of Rs.10000/ towards loss of consortium, Rs.10000/ towards loss to estate, Rs.5000/ towards funeral expenses, Rs.5000/ towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs.500/ towards attendant charges and Rs.300/ towards transportation. Looking the particular facts of the case a sum of Rs.5000/ is required to be granted towards medical expenses. Considering all these amounts, the total compensation would come to Rs.2,51,800/. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,51,300/ to the claimants . Therefore a sum of Rs.99500/ is required to be refunded.
10.0 In the premises aforesaid it is held that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,51,800/ and the excess amount of Rs.99500/ shall be returned to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The judgement and award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*