By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellans – original claimants have challenged the judgment and award dated 22nd August 1995 passed by the learned MAC Tribunal (Main) at Nadiad in MAC Petition No.920 of 1987 vide which the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants. 2 The facts leading to filing the present appeal are to the effect that deceased Ramyagna Bechai was working as a Driver of Tempo bearing registration No.GRX 3378 and when his Tempo came near village Porda, his Tempo was given a dash by the Driver of the truck bearing No.MBO 9872 which was being driven rashly and negligently and which came from the opposite direction. In the said accident, deceased Ramyagna died. The claimant therefore filed MAC Petition claiming a total compensation of Rs.2 lakhs inter alia contending that the deceased was working as a Driver and was earning Rs.900 per month.
3 The learned Tribunal considering the income of the deceased at Rs.1200 per month and at Rs.36,000 per annum and after deducting 1/3rd therefrom arrived at a figure of Rs.900 per month and Rs.10,800 per annum as future economic loss. Considering the age of the deceased, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 10 and awarded Rs.1,08,000 under the head of future economic loss. He has also awarded Rs.20,000 for loss of expectation and life amenities, Rs.15,000 under the head of loss of consortium and Rs.5,000 under the head of funeral charges. Thus, in all the Tribunal considered Rs.1,48,000 as amount of compensation and deducted 50% therefrom towards his own contributory negligence and awarded Rs.72,000 along with interest at the rate of 12%. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement.
4 Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as other side and perused the record.
5 Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has committed an error in apportioning 50% of negligence on the part of the deceased. She further submitted that it should have been not more than 25% on the part of the deceased. She further submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the future economic prospects of the deceased. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the award passed by the Tribunal.
6 The Tribunal has considered the evidence of one Budhabhai Fatabhai at Exhibit 36, who is an eye witness. He deposed that there was head on collision and due to the impact of collision, Tempo was pushed back and turned turtle. Therefore, both the vehicles drivers are equally negligent for the accident. No interference is called for on the point of contributory negligence and on the aspect of income. However, the Tribunal has committed an error in adopting the multiplier of 10. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 the multiplier ought to be 14. Therefore, the amount under the head of future economic loss would be Rs.1,51,200 (Rs.10,800 x 14 multiplier) from which 50% should be deducted towards contributory negligence. They are also entitled to get Rs.40,000 under conventional heads. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to get Rs.95,600 whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs.74,000. The claimants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.21,600 with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of application till realisation.
7 In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd