1. Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment and award dated 24.03.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No.1104/1989 & 780/1989 whereby, both the claim petitions were partly allowed and the claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.86,000/- and 2,07,000/- respectively along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization and proportionate costs.
2. The facts in brief are that on 06.04.1989 at about 1515 hrs. Kanubhai Mangalbhai and Mahendrabhai Chaganbhai were going to Vadodara from Savli on the Scooter bearing registration No. GCD 4111, it was dashed by a Truck bearing registration No. GRQ 7651 driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3-Insurance Company. In the said accident, both the scooterist sustained severe bodily injuries. However, Mahendrabhai Chaganbhai succumbed to the injuries.
3. The injured, Kanubhai Mangalbhai, filed M.A.C.P. No.1104/1989 whereas, the legal heirs of deceased, Mahendrabhai Chaganbhai, filed M.A.C.P. No.780/1989 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- & 10,00,000/- respectively. Both the claim petitions were disposed of by the common impugned award. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred these appeals for enhancement.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent no.3. None appears on behalf of respondents no.1 & 2 though served.
First Appeal No. 5278/1995 :
5. The main ground on which the appellant has prayed for enhancement of compensation is that the Tribunal has not considered the aspect of rise in future income while calculating future loss of income. Having gone through the impugned award, I find that the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the injured appellant at Rs.1,500/-. The appellant had not produced any documentary evidence on record to prove his income. However, considering the fact that the appellant was doing agricultural work and was also running a flour mill, the assessment of monthly income made by the Tribunal is just and appropriate. However, while calculating future loss of income, the Tribunal has not considered the rise in future, as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121 wherein, a rise of 30% has been provided for claimants of the age group of the appellant. By adopting the said principle, the monthly income of the appellant would come to Rs.1,950/-. The medical evidence on record shows that the appellant sustained 20% disability for the body as a whole and therefore, the monthly loss of income would come to Rs.390/- and annual loss at Rs.4,680/-. By adopting the multiplier of 15, the total economic loss would come to Rs.70,200/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.54,000/- only under the above head and hence, the appellant shall be entitled for additional amount of Rs.16,200/- under the head of future economic loss. So far as income awarded under the other heads are concerned, the same are just and appropriate and hence, are not disturbed.
First Appeal No. 6585/1995 :
6. The claimants in this appeal have prayed for enhancement on the ground that the Tribunal has not considered the aspect of rise in future income and also erred in calculating dependency benefit inasmuch 1/3rd deduction has been made though the total number of dependents were seven. It appears from the record that before the Tribunal no documentary evidence was produced by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased. However, considering the fact that the deceased was an agriculturist and cultivating tobacco, his monthly income was assessed at Rs.1,500/-, which is just and appropriate. While calculating dependency benefit, I find that the Tribunal has not considered the issue of rise in future income, as has been provided in Sarla Verma's case (supra). If we adopt the principle laid down in the said decision, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,950/-. Considering the total number of dependents, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/5th towards personal expenses, in view of the principle rendered in Sarla Verma's case (supra). Therefore, the monthly dependency loss would come to Rs.1,560/- and annual loss at Rs.18,720/-. By adopting the multiplier of 15, the total income under the head of loss of dependency would come to Rs.2,80,800/-. But, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,80,000/- under the said head. Hence, the claimants shall be entitled for additional amount of Rs.1,00,800/- under the head of loss of dependency. So far as income awarded under the other heads are concerned, the same are just and appropriate and hence, are not disturbed.
First Appeals No.5278/1995 and 6585/1995 :
7. For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals are partly allowed. The impugned common award is modified to the extent that the appellants of M.A.C.P.
No.1104/1989 and M.A.C.P. No.780/1989 shall be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.16,200/- and Rs.1,00,800/- respectively along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization. The common impugned award stands modified to the above extent. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*