1. The appellants herein have challenged the award dated 15.02.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 379 of 1993 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 1,03,280/- as compensation with interest and costs.
2. It is the case of the appellants that on 06.04.1993 while the deceased Shri Kantibhai Keshavlal was standing near the bus stand, a bus which was being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner was being taken in reverse side as a result of which the bus hit Shri Kantibhai thereby killing him. The appellants therefore filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,80,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
Ms.
Priyanka Japee, learned advocate appearing for Mr. J.V. Japee for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in applying only 9 multiplier when the age of the deceased at the time of accident was around 50 years. She submitted that the Tribunal ought to have applied a multiplier of 12. She submitted that considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th as personal expenses instead of 1/3rd.
4. Ms.
Vasavdatta Bhatt supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that no interference is called for. She submitted that the multiplier adopted is just and proper and that the Tribunal is justified in granting compensation which is adequate.
5. Before proceeding further it is required to be noted that the issues with regard to multiplier and deduction by way of personal expenses are already settled by the decisions of Apex Court. In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 it is held as under:
"In Susamma Thomas this Court increased the income by nearly 100%. In Sarla Dixit the income was increased only by 50% and in Abat Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of the imponderables and uncertainties,w e are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the decased towards future prospects, whee the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words "actual salary" should be read as "actual salary less tax"). The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Thouugh the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Wehr e the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.) the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.
Where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family numbers is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th), where the number of Dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of Dependant family members exceed six.
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. In the present case the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1100/-. Nothing is pointed out to take a different figure in that regard. In the present case the widow and three children of the deceased are the claimants and therefore considering the formula laid down in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), 1/4th is required to be deducted towards personal expenses which is Rs. 275/-. Accordingly, dependency loss comes to Rs. 825/- per month and Rs. 9900/- per annum.
7. 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, the multiplier of 9 awarded in the present case is on lower side. The just and proper multiplier would be 10. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs. 99,000/- (Rs.9900 x 10). Against this the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 79,380/-. Therefore an additional amount of Rs. 19,620/- shall be payable to the original claimants.
8. As regards the rest of the awards under various heads are just and proper and no interference is required.
9. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 19,620/- alongwith interest at 7.5% from the date of application till realisation. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top