1. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 04.12.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Valsad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 372 of 2002 (Old No. 96 of 1993) so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 2,00,000/-as compensation with interest and costs.
2. It is the case of the appellant that on 19.10.1992 while the appellant was going in an S.T. Bus from Keshod to Umargaon the bus collided with a truck as result of which the appellant sustained injuries. The appellant therefore filed claim petition for compensation. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
Mr.
Mithani, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the multiplier. He submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in not considering the prospective income of the appellant in calculating future loss of income. He has relied upon a decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr Vs. Balwant Yadav & Ors, reported in 1996 AIR 1274 (=1996 SCC (3) 179) as well as Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC
121.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent supported the award of the Tribunal and submitted that the same does not call for any interference by this Court. However, learned advocate for the respondent could not controvert the issue of multiplier and prospective income.
5. This Court heard the contentions advanced by the parties and perused the papers on record. The Tribunal has gone through the documentary evidence on record and come to the conclusion that the truck driver and the bus driver contributed to the accident to the extent of 60% and 40% respectively. No interference is called for regarding the same.
6. As far as the aspect of quantum of compensation is concerned, it is clear that the Tribunal has considered the evidence on record. Before proceeding further it is required to be noted that the issues with regard to income and multiplier are already settled by the decisions of Apex Court. In the case of Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr Vs. Balwant Yadav & Ors, reported in 1996 AIR 1274 (=1996 SCC (3)
179) it is held as under:
"...
Adopting the same scientific yardstick as laid down in the aforesaid judgement, the computation of compensation in the present case can almost be subjected to a well settled mathematical formula. Deceased in the present case, as seen above, was earning gross salary of Rs.1,543/- per month. Rounding it upto figure of Rs.1,500/- and keeping in view all the future prospects which the deceased had in stable military service in the light of his brilliant academic record and performance in the military service spread over 7 years, and also keeping in view the other imponderables like accidental death while discharging military duties and the hazards of military service, it will not be unreasonable to predicate that his gross monthly income would have shot up to at least double than what he was earning at the time of his death, i.e. upto Rs.3,000/- per month had he survived in life and had successfully completed his future military career till the time of superannuation. The average future monthly income could be arrived at by adding the actual gross income at the time of death, namely, Rs.1,500/- per month to the maximum whichhe would have otherwise got had he not died a premature death, i.e. Rs.3,000/- per month and dividing that figure by two. Thus the average gross monthly income spread over his entire future career, had it been available, would work out to Rs.4,500/- divided by 2, i.e. Rs.2,200/-. Rs.2,200/- per month would have been the gross monthly average income available to the family fo the deceased had he survived as a bread winner...."
6.1 Thus considering the formula laid down in the case of Smt. Sarla Dixit (supra) the prospective income of the appellant is to be calculated. In the present case the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the appellant at Rs.2000/-. Nothing is pointed out to take a different figure in that regard. The said income should be doubled and actual gross income should be added. By doubling, the amount would come to Rs.4000/- and by adding current income of Rs.2000/- it would come to Rs. 6000/-. Average monthly income can be derived by dividing the same by 2. Therefore the average monthly income would come to Rs.3000/-. Considering the disability of 35%, the loss of income per month shall come to Rs. 1050/- which is Rs. 12600/- per annum.
6.2 The multiplier of 16 adopted by the Tribunal is on lower side. In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors (supra) it is held as under:
"The multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
6.3 As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), I am of the view that, looking to the age of the claimant which is 30, the multiplier of 16 awarded in the present case is on lower side. The just and proper multiplier would be 17. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs. 2,14,200/- (Rs.12600 x 17). The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 1,34,000/- under the said head and therefore an additional amount of Rs. 80,200/- is required to be awarded.
7. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 80200/- alongwith interest at 7.5% from the date of application till realisation. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top