1. In this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) the challenge is to the award dated 03.07.2001 passed in M.A.C.P. 1 of 1997 by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Bharuch) by which the claimants are entitled to recover compensation of Rs. 2,59,300 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent p.a. from the date of application till realization with cost.
The short facts giving rise to the Claim Petition are as under :
"Deceased Pannalal Gordhandas Shah has expired on 16.4.1995 when he was standing at S.T. Depot at Bharuch due to the negligence on the part of S.T. Driver while taking reverse of his bus and on the spot Pannalal was expired and therefore this claim petition byheirs of deceased Pannalal to recover Rs. 7,00,000/- on the ground that deceased was aged about 57 years and having an agricultural income and was earning Rs. 1,62,000/- and he was also earning a shop and thereby also earning and therefore according to the claimants full amount be awarded."
2. In this appeal various grounds have been raised namely, that the Claim Tribunal erred in calculating and applying the multiplier of 7 to the deceased aged about 60 years and also for loss of the estate of Rs. 10,000/- and it is submitted that village namely 7x12 and 8A produced before the Tribunal revealed that the deceased had agricultural holdings and therefore, in addition to a shop owned and run by the deceased, the Tribunal considered the income from the above source also. To the the extent as above it is submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed.
Sri H.J. Trivedi, learned counsel for the opponent no. 2 Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation further contended that the judgment and award of the Claim Tribunal is based on evidence on record and applying the relevant criteria to determine the income of the deceased and applicability of multiplier and deduction of 1/3 amount towards personal expenses of the deceased in absence of any error by the Tribunal, the Appeal deserves to be rejected.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties respectively, perusal of the record of the case and the judgment impugned, it is evident that the deceased was aged about 57 years and some evidence was produced in the form of payment of Sales Tax to show that he was running a shop and extract of village 7x12 and 8A revealed that the deceased had a share in agricultural land. The Claim Tribunal was not oblivious to the above evidence and it was taken into consideration and therefore, Rs. 2,000/- per month was considered as income from the agricultural holdings while Rs. 1,000/- was from the grain shop. However, the applicability of multiplier was 7, but in the case of Sarla Verma(Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Apex Court has prepared a table for applying multiplier vis a vis the age of the deceased and the case on the hand is considered accordingly, the multiplier of 9 ought to have been applied and to that extent the award of the Tribunal needs to be modified. The claimants-appellant are therefore, entitled under the heads of the dependency benefit by considering income of Rs. 2700/- per month multiplied by 12 which comes to Rs. 32,400/- multiplied by 9 would come to Rs. 2,91,600. The award of the Tribunal to the above extent stands modified and is declared that the appellant is entitled to recover modified compensation accordingly. Other heads on which the Claim Tribunal has awarded the amount namely under the heads of 'funeral charges' and 'loss of estate' remain as they are and together the head of dependency the appellant is entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 2,91,600/- minus Rs. 2,26,800(already awarded by the Tribunal) = Rs. 64,800/- w.e.f. 1.1.1997 at the annual simple interest of 9 per cent.
Appeal is allowed to that extent.
[ANANT S. DAVE,J] FH.
Top