1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants, original applicants, against the judgment and award dated 11.03.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Panchmahals at Godhra in M.A.C.P. No.1040/1991 whereby, the claim petition was allowed in part and the appellants were awarded total compensation of Rs.90,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of award till its realization with proportionate costs as against the total claim of Rs.1,05,000/-.
2. The aforesaid claim petition was preferred in connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 07.09.1991 involving an ST Bus bearing registration No. GJ-1-Z-815 and in which Paragkumar, the minor son of the appellants herein, had expired.
3. The main head under which the appellants have prayed for enhancement of compensation is that the amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency is on the lower side. It is submitted that since the deceased was unmarried and the claimants are the parents, a deduction of ½ is to be made towards personal living expenses instead of 2/3rd done by the Tribunal. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It appears from the record that the Tribunal has deducted 2/3rd amount towards personal living expenses of deceased while computing dependency benefit. The claimants had not produced any documentary evidence to prove income of the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal assessed the notional monthly income at Rs.900/-, which, in my opinion, is just and reasonable. Considering the principle rendered in Sarla Verma's case (supra), a deduction of ½ is to be made towards personal living expenses since the deceased was unmarried. By deducting ½ towards personal living expenses of deceased, the monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs.450/- and annual loss at Rs.5,400/-. The appropriate multiplier would be 17 since the age of mother was 30 years at the time of accident. Thus, the total amount under the head of loss of dependency would come to Rs.91,800/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.64,800/- under the above head and hence, the claimants shall be entitled for additional amount of Rs.27,000/- under the head of loss of dependency.
5. The claimants shall also be entitled for additional amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for additional compensation of Rs.42,000/-. However, since this appeal is restricted to Rs.15,000/- only, the claimants shall be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- as the Tribunal has already awarded compensation of Rs.90,000/-.
6. On the aspect of interest, I find that the Tribunal has awarded interest from the date of award, which is erroneous and contrary to the settled provisions of law. The Tribunal ought to have awarded interest from the date of application instead of the date of passing of award.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants, original claimants, shall be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- [Rupees Fifteen thousand only] along with interest at the rate of 07.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization. However, it is clarified that on the principal amount of compensation of Rs.90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application and not from the date of impugned award. 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/* Top