This appeal arises out of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(in short, the 'M.V. Act'). The challenge is to the judgment and award dated 13.12.2001 rendered in M.A.C.P. No.697/1996 by learned Judge, M.A.C.T. (Auxiliary), Court No.19, Ahmedabad awarding compensation of Rs.4,63,000/= to the claimants with interest @ 10% per annum with cost from the date of filing the petition till realisation.
Short facts for which the claim petition was filed by the claimant are as under :-
On 10.11.1995 deceased Motibhai Devshibhai Chavda was going on his bicycle to his relative Hirabhai Laghabhai alongwith his son who was also riding separate bicycle and accompanying the deceased. When both were returning at about 7.00 0'clock they were passing near Ashok Mill Lane and deceased stopped his cycle at the entrance of Ashok Mill, at relevant time, opponent No.1 of the M.A.C.P. came suddenly from Amdupura by his A.M.T.S. Bus No.GRS-8815 in rash and negligent manner, at an excessive speed, endangering human life, without sounding the horn, and hit the deceased, as a result, the deceased fell down and was run over by the bus and died on the spot tragically. At that time, applicant No.4, son of the deceased was also there and filed complaint before Saherkotada Police Station at I Crime Reg. No.275/95. The deceased was hale and hearty and had no addiction. The deceased was earning salary of Rs.3000/- from Anil Starch Mill and he was also dealing in making sofa set and furniture and was monthly earning Rs.5000/- from the said business. Thus, the deceased was totally earning Rs.8000/- per month. The deceased was the sole bread winner of the family and entire family was dependent upon the deceased and hence, the claim petition was filed.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Corporation (AMTS) would submit that the Tribunal erred in holding the AMTS negligent by 90% and contributory negligence of 10% which is attributed to the claimant. It is therefore, submitted that if the Panchnama of scene of offence is seen, alongwith deposition of witnesses and driver of the offending AMTS Bus, the contributory negligence attributed to the claimant is very less and to the above extent, the findings of the Tribunal are contrary to the material on record. It is further submitted that the application of multiplier of 10 to the deceased aged 52 years was also on the higher side and therefore, the judgment and award of the Tribunal impugned in this appeal deserves to be quashed and set aside.
As against this, learned Counsel for the opponent / claimant herein would submit that even if the scene of panchnama is seen alongwith deposition of driver of AMTS, it is revealed that the accident had taken place almost in the middle of the road but it could have been averted provided the driver of AMTS Bus had taken adequate precautions and the Tribunal rightly relied on Panchnama - Exhibit 22 and to the extent of negligence of the deceased, he is held 10% negligent. The above finding of learned Counsel for the opponent / claimant cannot said to be illegal warranting interference by this Court. It is further submitted that as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 in a case of deceased aged 52 years, the multiplier that may be applied is 11 but the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 10 and therefore, it is on the lower side. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation by applying the multiplier of 11 and appropriate order can be passed accordingly.
Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the record and submissions of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, the decision of the Tribunal to award compensation by taking into consideration the monthly income of the deceased as per the Salary Certificate of Rs.2,532/= per month and also income from other sources like sale and distribution of furniture on the basis of invoice at Exhibit 26 and calculating the dependency by applying the multiplier of 10 appears to be just and proper. As the Award under the head of loss of expectation of life and consortium is Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively, negligence of the deceased even if it is increased by 20%, since the multiplier would apply in the case of deceased aged 52 years is 11 the total amount of compensation is just, and therefore, the Tribunal in Paragraph 13 held as under :-
"Having heard learned Advocate and perusing the documents on record, it is clear that the deceased was serving in Anil Starch Products Ltd., and was drawing monthly salary of Rs.2532/- and other allowances. For the purpose of counting dependency loss, it is just and reasonable to count Rs.3000/- monthly salary and though it is submitted that the deceased was earning Rs.5000/- by dealing in the furniture business and various bills and invoices are produced at Exh. 26 collectively. However, the income from the salary as well as from the business of furniture, the deceased monthly income of Rs.5000/- is deducible, though applicant have stated in the deposition that the deceased was earning Rs.5000/- extra from the furniture business. So far as multiplier is concerned, there are five family member and including the deceased. There are six family members. Hence, instead of 1/3rd as personal expenses, 1/4th may be deducted from the amount of Rs.5000/-. This view of clearly supported by the judgments reported in 1997 (1) GLR 325 in the case of GSRCT Vs. Mer Ranmal Bhima and 2001 (3) GLR 2029 in the case of Saruyaben Harisinghbhai Bilwal Vs. Ataullakhan Mehtabhkhan Lalkhan Pathan & Others. In the present case, looking to the above ratio laid down in the above judgments, since there are five members depended upon the deceased, the personal expenses of the deceased from Rs.5000/-, Rs.1000/- is to be deducted. Hence, the deceased's monthly income would have been Rs.4000/- and the deceased was of 50 years, 10 years multiplier is just and reasonable to be pressed into service. Therefore, Rs.4000/- x 12 x 10 will amount to Rs.4,80,000/-, the same amount is granted under the head of dependency loss to the bereaved applicants, for loss of expectation of life Rs.20000/-, for loss of consortium Rs.10000/- and for after death ceremony Rs.5000/- is granted. In the result, under all heads, the applicants are entitled to recover the amount of Rs.515000/-. It requires a special mention that though the deceased was not liable for contributory negligence, as discussed earlier. However, 10% of the amount is to be deducted as contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Therefore, Rs.51,500/- is to be deducted from the amount of Rs.515000/- will amount to Rs.4,63,000/-. In the result, the applicants are entitled to recover the total compensation amount of Rs.4,63,000/- from the opponents jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 10% p.a."
The above award of compensation is just to the claimants whose sons were major at the time of filing of the claim petition. Further, there was income from manufacturing and sale of furniture and hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Anant S. Dave, J.) Caroline Top