1 By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellants – original claimants have challenged the judgment and order dated 20th April 2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Valsad at Navsari in MAC Petition No.10 of 1993 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.60,000/- to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 9% per cent from the date of application till realisation.
2 The short facts of the present appeal as per the claimants are that on 14th October 1992 deceased – Rajeshkumar Bhagubhai Patel was going on Scooter bearing No.GTN 1889 and when he reached near 1st gate of Atul factory, at that time, one tempo bearing registration No.MH-04 7670 being driven by original opponent No.1 came from behind and dashed with the Scooter of the deceased due to which Rajeshkumar received serious injuries and died on the spot.
3. The parents of the deceased filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000 in respect of fatal injuries caused to their son due to vehicular accident which took place on 14th October 1992.
4 Looking to the age of the deceased being 18 years, the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.900 per month and Rs.10,800 per annum and deducted 2/3rd therefrom towards his personal expenses to arrive at Rs.3,600 per annum being the loss of dependency benefit. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 and awarded Rs.54,000 as future economic loss. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.5,000 towards cremation charges and thereby considered the compensation at Rs.59,000 which is rounded off to Rs.60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum against which the present appeal is filed by the insurance company.
5. Mr Adil Mirza, learned counsel for the appellants insurance has, inter-alia, submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income at Rs.900 per month and the Tribunal has also committed an error in not considering the future economic prospects of the deceased. Mr Mirza has next contended that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on lower side and it should be increased suitably.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The deceased was 18 years old at the time of accident. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly notional income of the deceased at Rs.900 per month. However, the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 2/3rd amount towards personal expenses and awarding 1/3rd amount as future economic loss. In fact, the personal expenses should be deducted 50% of the income of the unmarried son and therefore the monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs.450 and Rs.5,400 per annum. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shyam Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 2011 SC 3231 the age of the parents should be considered while determining the multiplier. In the present case the age of the mother of the deceased is 40 years and therefore in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 the claimants are entitled to the multiplier of 15. Therefore, the total amount that can be granted under the head of future economic loss would come to Rs.81,000. The Tribunal has also committed an error in not awarding any amount under the head of loss to estate. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to get Rs.10,000 on that head and Rs.5,000 towards funeral charges. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to get Rs.96,000/- from the respondents. As against that, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.60,000/- to the claimants. Thus, the claimants are entitled to get additional amount of compensation to the extent of Rs.36,000 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the judgment and order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to get total compensation of Rs.96,000 as against the amount of compensation of Rs.60,000. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd