1. In connection with the accident that took place on 13.06.1992 on the Dhandhuka – Bajarda road in which Upendrasinh, son of the appellants, original claimants, expired, claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.1426/1992 was preferred by the legal heirs, the appellants herein, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur. The said claim petition was allowed in part by judgment and award dated 13.09.1999 whereby, a total compensation of Rs.75,200/- was awarded along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the appellants have preferred the present appeal for enhancement.
2. It has been submitted on behalf of appellants that the accident occurred on account of the sole negligence of the Tanker and the Tribunal erred in assessing contributory negligence between the Scooterist and Tanker at 20 : 80. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the prospective income of deceased and also erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal living expenses and in adopting the multiplier of 10 while computing dependency benefit. It is, therefore, prayed that the compensation awarded deserves to be enhanced.
3. Per contra, it has been submitted on behalf of respondent-Insurance Company that the compensation awarded is just and appropriate and hence, this appeal may not be entertained.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. None appears on behalf of respondents no.1 & 2. It appears from the panchnama of the place of accident that the Scooterist dashed the Tanker on the side central area at a road intersection. Had the Scooterist been careful, the accident could have been averted. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly held the ratio of contributory negligence between the Scooterist and Tanker at 20 : 80 and I find no reasons to disturb the same.
5. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it appears that the Tribunal has straight-away assessed the prospective income of the deceased at Rs.2,100/-. In my opinion, the said assessment made by the Tribunal is just and legal considering the fact that at the time of accident the deceased was knowing Gujarati Stenography and was studying in an I.T.I. Therefore, I do not find it necessary to further assess the income of the deceased and accordingly, confirm the assessment made by the Tribunal regarding the monthly income of the deceased. However, while computing dependency benefit, it appears that the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal living expenses of the deceased as against ½, in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. If we deduct ½ amount towards personal living expenses of the deceased, then the monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,050/- and annual loss of dependency at Rs.12,600/-. Considering the age of parents, the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 14 instead of 10. Thus, by adopting the multiplier of 14, the total amount under the head of loss of dependency benefit would come to Rs.1,76,400/-.
6. The claimants shall also be entitled for Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of estate and another Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, they shall be entitled to receive Rs.1,91,400/- as compensation. However, the claimants shall be entitled to receive Rs.1,53,120/- after deducting 20% towards negligence. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.75,200/- and therefore, the claimants shall be entitled to receive additional compensation of Rs.77,920/-, which is rounded off to Rs.78,000/-.
7. In view of the above discussion, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants, original claimants, shall be entitled to receive additional compensation of Rs.78,000/- [Rupees Seventy eight thousand only] along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization over and above the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*