1. These appeals are preferred against the common judgment and award dated 07.08.1991 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Aux.] Ahmedabad [Rural] at Mirzapur, in M.A.C.P. No. 1101/1991 and 1102/1991, whereby the claim petitions were partly allowed and the original claimants in M.A.C.P. No. 1101/1991 were awarded total compensation of Rs.1,71,000/ and the original claimants in M.A.C.P. No. 1102/1991 were awarded total compensation of Rs.31,000/ along with interest @ 12% from the date of the application till its realization.
2. The facts in brief are that on 07.06.1991, while Rasikbhai who was serving as conductor in matador and Nanjibhai, who was serving as a labour in the said matador, were going towards Viramgam, at a particular place, on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent no. 1, the matador turned turtle. As a result of which Rameshbhai and Nanjibhai both sustained severe bodily injuries. Subsequently, Rameshbhai died. The legal heirs of deceased Rameshbhai and Nanjibhai filed claim petitions being M.A.C.P. No. 1101/1991 and 1102/1992, which came to be partly allowed, by way of the impugned award. The claimants have filed the present appeals for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
3. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the and that the Tribunal has not assessed the prospective income of the deceased appropriately while calculating income under the above head.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. So far as M.A.C.P. No. 1101/1991 is concerned, the, Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.800/ per month which is on the lower side and that the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd amount of towards personal expenses and it ought to have deducted 1/5th amount towards personal expenses, since the total number of dependents are 5.
5. Having gone through the impugned award, I find substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellants of M.A.C.P. No. 1101/1991 since the Tribunal has not calculated the prospective income while calculating the amount of compensation. By adopting the principle of doubling the income and then taking its average, as laid down by the Apex Court in its recent decision, the income would come to Rs.1350/ per month. However, while calculating the loss of dependency, I find that the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. The total number of dependents are 5 and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/5th amount towards personal expenses in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 122. In view of the above, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.1080/ per month, rounded figure would be Rs.1000/ [1350 x 1/5] and Rs.12,000/ annually. The deceased was aged 32 years at the time of the accident. Hence, as per the principle laid down in Sarla Verma's case (Supra) the appropriate multiplier would be 13. Therefore, in all the loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,56,000/ [12,000 x 13]]. However, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,44,000/ under the head of loss of dependency. Therefore, the claimant shall be entitled for an additional amount of Rs.12,000/ together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum instead of 12% as awarded by the Tribunal.
6. So far as M.A.C.P. No. 1102/1991 is concerned, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is on the lower side. However, having gone through the impugned award, I find that the compensation awarded under the respective heads are just and appropriate and in consonance with the evidence on record and the law on the subject. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal and hence, I find no reasons to entertain the present appeal.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the First Appeal No. 3396/1998 is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant, original claimant, shall be entitled for an additional amount of Rs.12,000/ together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and proportionate costs thereon. Rest of the impugned award remains unaltered. So far as First Appeal No. 3397/1998 is concerned, the same is dismissed.
[K.S. JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/