1. The appellants herein have challenged the award dated 06.07.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Amreli in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 289/1993 so far as the Tribunal awarded Rs. 157000/- as compensation with interest and costs.
2. It is the case of the appellants that on 06.10.1993 while Shri Vinubhai Vallabbhai was travelling in a rickshaw bearing registration no. GTS 7102 being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, the same turned turtle as result of which Shri Vinubhai sustained injuries and finally succumbed to the same. The appellants therefore filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lakhs. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Mr. Jani, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the appellant. He submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly considered the multiplier considering the age of the deceased as 30. He has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121. Mr Jani submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded adequate amount under the head of funeral expenses and not awarded any amount under the head of consortium.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the respondents supported the award of the Tribunal and submitted that the same does not call for any interference by this Court.
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 has come to the conclusion that the accident in question happened due to the negligence of the original opponent no. 1. 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. The Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 1200/- per month and the dependency loss at Rs. 800/- per month and Rs. 9600/- per annum.
6.1 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.”
6.2 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 appellant, the multiplier of 15 awarded in the present case is on lower side. The just and proper multiplier would be 17. The income assessed is just and proper. Therefore the future loss of dependency would come to Rs. 1,63,200/- (Rs.9600 x 17). The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 144000/- under the said head and therefore an additional amount of Rs. 19,200/- is required to be awarded under head of dependency loss.
7. As far as the amount awarded under the head of funeral expenses is concerned, the same is on lower side. An additional amount of Rs. 2000/- is awarded. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of consortium and therefore an amount of Rs. 10000/- is awarded under the said head. Rest of the award is just and proper. Therefore in all the claimants shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 31,200/- payable by the original opponent no. 1 as the original opponent no. 2 is exonerated.
8. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 31,200/- alongwith interest at 7.5% from the date of application till realisation from the original opponent no. 1 only. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//