By way of filing these appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellants – original claimants have challenged the judgment and award dated 26th November 2002 passed by the learned MAC Tribunal (Aux.), Bharuch in MAC Petition No.1015 of 1992 vide which the Tribunal has partially allowed the claim petitions filed by the claimants. 2 The facts leading to filing the present appeals are to the effect that on the date of the incident both the deceased viz. Manojrao Gulabrao and Rameshbhai Mithabhai were going on motorcycle Suzuki and at that time one truck bearing No.GJ3 T 211 came from the opposite direction and dashed with the motorcycle due to which both the riders died on the spot. Therefore, heirs and legal representatives of both the deceased had filed claim petitions. Claim Petition No.1015 of 1992 was filed by the heirs and legal representatives of Manojrao filed Claim Petition No.1015 of 1992 whereas heirs and legal representatives of Manojrao filed Claim Petition No.1046 of 1992 claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and 8 lakhs respectively from the opponents.
3 The Tribunal considering the documentary as well as oral evidence produced on record awarded Rs.1,68,100 to the claimants of Claim Petition No.1015 of 1992 whereas he awarded Rs.3,14,500 to the claimants of Claim Petition No.1046 of 1992. Hence, the present appeals are filed by the claimants claiming for enhancement.
4 Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs.1,68,100 to the claimants of Claim Petition No.1015 of 1992 whereas he awarded Rs.3,14,500 to the claimants of Claim Petition No.1046 of 1992. He contended that multiplier applied is also on lower side. He further contended that the Tribunal has also committed an error in awarding meager amount under the head of conventional amount.
5. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the Scooter Driver was also negligent to the extent of 50%.
6. The Tribunal considered the income of the pillion rider deceased at Rs.1200 per month and Rs.14,400 per year. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd amount therefrom towards his personal expenditure and looking to the age of the deceased of 24 years, multiplier of 16 is applied. Thus, Rs.1,53,600 was awarded towards future economic loss. Over and above Rs.2,000 was awarded towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,500 was awarded towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000 towards loss of consortium. Thus, in all Rs.1,68,100 was awarded.
7. While this Court does not feel to interfere with the aspect of income of the deceased is concerned, however, as the age of the deceased was 24 years, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 18 instead of 16. Therefore, the amount payable under the head of loss of dependency would come to Rs.172,800 (Rs.1200 per month and Rs.1440 per year multiplied by 18 multiplier) as against which the Tribunal has awarded Rs.153,600. Further, the claimants are entitled to Rs.25,000 as conventional amount. Therefore, the claimants of First Appeal No.3353 of 2005 are entitled to get excess amount of Rs.29,700 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realisation.
8. As far as First Appeal No.3354 of 2005 is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed the annual income at Rs.30,000 and by applying the multiplier of 15, the Tribunal considered the future economic loss at Rs.4,50,000 out of which he deducted 1/3rd amount towards his personal expenses. Over and above Rs.2,000 was awarded towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,500 was awarded towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000 towards loss of consortium. Thus, in all Rs.3,14,500 was assessed as the compensation. However, as the deceased was negligent to the extent of 50% towards the accident, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,57,250 as the amount of compensation.
9 As the age of the deceased was 26 years, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 17 instead of 15. The Tribunal has also committed an error in deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses. In fact, 1/4th amount ought to have been deducted considering the number of dependants. Therefore, the amount payable under the head of loss of dependency would come to Rs.382,500 (Rs.30,000 x 17 multiplier = Rs.510,000 less 1/4th amount i.e. Rs.127,500). Further, the claimants are entitled to Rs.25,000 as conventional amount. Thus, the amount payable to the claimants would come to Rs.4,07,500/-. As the deceased was negligent towards the accident, 50% amount should be deducted towards his contributory negligence. Thus, the claimants are entitled to get Rs.2,03,750 as against which the Tribunal awarded Rs.157,250. Therefore, the claimants of First Appeal No.3354 of 2005 are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.46,500/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realisation.
Both the Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd