1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 30.03.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux-1), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P. No.850/1991 whereby, the claim petition was partly allowed and the appellants, original claimants, were awarded total compensation of Rs.2,70,400/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization and proportionate costs.
2. The facts in brief are that on 12.04.1991 at about 0930 hrs. while Daudbhai Fakirbhai Mansuri was going towards Naroda from Chiloda on his Moped bearing registration No. GRL 6145, a Truck bearing registration No. DL-1L-2266 driven by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.2-Insurance Company, dashed the Moped from the behind. In the said accident, Daudbhai Mansuri sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. His legal heirs filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, which came to be partly allowed by way of the impugned award. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
3. Heard learned for the respective parties. The main ground on which the appellants have prayed for enhancement is that the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd amount from the monthly income of the deceased while calculating dependency benefits. It has been submitted that 1/4th should have been deducted in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side considering the age of the deceased at the time of accident and that the same deserves to be reduced in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 S.C.C. 176, which governed the issue at the relevant point of time.
4. There is no dispute between the parties before this Court on the issue of negligence. However, it appears that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the prospective income while assessing income under the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- on the basis that he was a Graduate and was serving as a Clerk in a Laboratory. However, it has not considered the prospective income while computing the dependency benefit. As per the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav and Another, 1996 (3) SCC 179 the prospective income of the deceased would come to Rs.3,000/- per month. The total number of dependents in the family of the deceased are four and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th towards the personal expenses instead of 1/3rd in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121. If we deduct 1/4th amount from the prospective income, then the monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs.2,250/- and the annual loss at Rs.27,000/-. However, so far as the multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal is concerned, the same is on the higher side and contrary to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 S.C.C. 176] wherein, the multiplier of 14 has been provided. Hence, by adopting the multiplier of 14, the total dependency benefit would come to Rs.3,78,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,39,400/- under the said head and hence, the claimants shall be entitled for additional amount of Rs.1,38,600/-. So far as income awarded under other heads are concerned, the same are just and appropriate and I find no reasons to disturb the same.
5. 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 for additional compensation of Rs.1,38,600/- 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. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*