1. These appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and award dated 24.12.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.4, Ahmedabad, in M.A.C.P. No. 41 of 1991 and M.A.C.P. No. 42 of 1991, whereby the claims petitions were partly allowed and the original claimants in M.A.C.P. No. 41 of 1991 were awarded total compensation of 50,000/ and the original claimants in M.A.C.P. No. 42 of 1991 were awarded total compensation of Rs.48,000/ along with proportionate costs and interest @ 15% per annum from the date of the application till its realization.
2. The facts in brief are that on 20th October, 1990 while the appellants were going on their scooter bearing no.GJ1V 902, when they reached near Vasna Policy Chowky, the driver of the Jeep in a rash and negligent manner came from the wrong side and collided with the scooter, as a result of which, the appellants sustained severe bodily injuries. Later on, the appellants filed claim petitions, which came to be partly allowed, by way of the impugned award. These appeals have been filed for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. So far as First Appeal No. 1100 of 1997 is concerned, the income assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper. So far as the multiplier is concerned, instead of 15 it should be 18 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr, reported in (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121. Hence, the total loss of income would come to (4320 X 18) Rs.77,760/. However, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/ under the said head. Since the claim of the appellant in M.A.C.P. No. 41/1991 is restricted to 50,000/ only, he shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.50,000/ along with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5.% per annum from the date of the application till its realization.
4. So far as First Appeal No. 1101 of 1997 is concerned, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of future economic loss. By taking the notional monthly income at Rs.1000/ and disability at 14% for the body as a whole, it would come of Rs.140/ and annually Rs.1680/. So far as multiplier is concerned, it should be 16 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr, reported in (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121. Hence, the future economic loss would come to (1680 x 16) Rs.26,880/. However, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/ under the head of loss of amenities of life. Hence, the claimants are entitled to additional compensation of Rs.11,880/ along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the application till its realization.
5. So far as compensation awarded under the other heads are concerned, I find the same to be just and appropriate. However, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and also contrary to the prevailing law on the subject. In my opinion, the appropriate rate of interest would be 12% per annum instead of 15% per annum considering the present day scenario. Hence, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is required to be modified accordingly.
6. For the foregoing reasons, First Appeal No. 1101 of 1997 is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the original claimant shall be entitled for compensation of Rs.12,000/ along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. First Appeal No. 1100 of 1997 stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/