The appellants were the claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition NO.101 of 2001, who are aggrieved by the judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal on 08/01/2003. 2. The claim petition was preferred by the appellants in connection with an accidental death of Chamanlal Hansrajbhai Mistri, husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant No.2, which occurred on account of an accident which took place on 29/08/2000 at about 9:30 p.m. near Bhagvat Petrol Pump. According to the appellants, the deceased was proceeding on his bicycle when he was knocked down by a bus belonging to respondent bearing Registration No.GRY 8522. The said bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life. According to the appellants, the age of the deceased was 53 years, and he was working with Silver Oak Country Clubs & Resort Ltd., as a technical carpenter and was earning about Rs.4,500/- per month. Because of his death, the appellants have suffered love, affection and dependency and therefore, they had claimed compensation of Rs.7 Lacs.
3. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award held that the accident occurred because of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal also accepted that the claimants were able to prove that the age of the deceased would be 53 years. So far as the income of the deceased was concerned, no documentary evidence was produced on record. However, a receptionist was examined before the Tribunal and on basis of his deposition, the Tribunal held that the income of the deceased was Rs.3,600/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd of the income as expenditure on his own self, the Tribunal held that the dependency loss of the claimants was Rs.2,400/- per month. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of five years, and awarded an amount of Rs.1,44,000/- as compensation under the head of dependency loss. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of expectation of life and Rs.5,000/- for the funeral expenses totaling Rs.1,59,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal awarded 9% interest from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs. Being aggrieved by the said award, the original claimants have preferred this appeal.
4. Learned Advocate Mr.Abhijit Joshi submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not considering prospective rise in the income of the deceased and has also erred in adopting a multiplier of five years, which is lesser than what has been settled by precedents. Mr.Joshi submitted that the claimants do not challenge the award on any other count.
5. Mr.Adil Mirza, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent, submitted that the claimants have not adduced any evidence to show the prospects of the deceased. The deceased was aged 53 and, therefore, he had limited prospects and consequential rise in prospective income, if any. The Tribunal, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any error. Mr.Mirza also submitted that the age of the deceased was 53 years. He would have attained normal age of superannuation at the age of 60 and considering imponderable of life, the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any error in adopting multiplier of five. He, therefore, submitted that appeal may be dismissed.
6. Having examined the judgment and award and proceedings, it is found that there is no dispute about the fact that the age of the deceased was 53 years; that he was working with Silver Oak Country Clubs and Resorts Ltd., as a technical carpenter. The dispute is regarding income. The claimants – appellants did not produce any documentary evidence on record of the case to support their version that the income of the deceased was Rs.4,500/- per month. However, a witness was examined who was working as a receptionist with the same organization and it emerges from the cross-examination of the said witness that the salary of the deceased was Rs.3100/- per month and Rs.500/- were being paid towards conveyance allowance besides food allowance, etc., amount of which was not certain. There was one more witness Mr.Virendar Mohan Sud who was examined at Exh.32. He deposed that the gross salary of deceased was Rs.4,500/-. His basic salary being Rs.3,100/-, added to it would be Rs.500/- towards conveyance allowance and Rs.30/- per day towards food allowance. The certificate, however indicated Rs.900/- towards food allowance which was not corroborated by this witness. The Tribunal, ultimately, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,600/-.
7. In the opinion of this Court, this is where the Tribunal seems to have committed an error, because even if the basic salary, plus Rs.500/- as a fixed allowance is taken into consideration, the net fixed income of the deceased would be Rs.3,600/-. It is also clear that the deceased was using bicycle for his movement and naturally he would not be spending Rs.500/- on his conveyance and, therefore, that amount has to be taken into consideration as his income for the purpose of dependency, even if the other allowances are ignored.
8. The deceased was aged 53 years. He was a technical carpenter who was working in a Silver Oak Clubs which is a private organization. There is no evidence to show that there is a prescribed age of superannuation and he would have therefore worked for a reasonable span. Even, if there is an age of superannuation, such technical skilled persons would not sit idle after retirement and would earn by doing some other activity after retirement and, therefore, prospective rise in income ought to have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal, which the Tribunal has failed to do.
9 Adopting a standard formula of rule of thumb, an amount of 50% can be added as prospective rise in income as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, for the purpose of dependency loss. That would be Rs.5,400/- even if one considers Rs.3,600/- as the income of the deceased.
9.1 However, considering the imponderable of life, for the purpose of dependency loss, income of the deceased can be considered at Rs.5,100/- per month.
9.2 Adopting a rule of thumb formula by deducting 1/3rd of the income for the expenditure on self, Rs.1,700/- will have to be deducted therefrom leaving behind Rs.3,400/- as actual dependency loss of claimants per month. The annual dependency would be Rs.40,800/-.
10 Now, coming to the question of multiplier, considering various judgments of the Apex Court, a multiplier of 09 can reasonably be adopted for the age of 53 years of the deceased. The actual dependency loss for the claimants, therefore, would be Rs.,3,67,200/- as against Rs.1,44,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
11 The appellants –claimants would be entitled to interest @ 9% on the enhanced amount of compensation under the head of dependency from the date of claim petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs thereon.
12 Appeal thus stands partly allowed, with no order as to costs.
(A L DAVE, J.) sompura