1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 12.11.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main], Surendrangar in M.A.C.P. No. 446 of 1990, whereby the claim petition was partly allowed and the original claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.1,54,000/ along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the application till its realization and proportionate costs.
2. In connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 24.11.1995 near Limbdi on Limbdi Dhandhuka State Highway Road, in which Gopalbhai Arjanbhai expired, the legal heirs filed claim petition, which came to be partly allowed, by way of the impugned award. The appellants have preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The main ground on which the appellants have 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 deceased at Rs.1,500/. The claimants had not produced any documentary evidence on record to prove his income. However, considering the fact that the deceased was doing the business of diamond cutting, 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 deceased. By adopting the said principle, the monthly income of the appellant would come to Rs.2,250/. Further the Tribunal has also erred in calculating dependency benefit inasmuch 2/3rd deduction has been made though the total number of dependents were four. Considering the total number of dependents, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses, in view of the principle rendered in Sarla Verma's case (supra). Therefore, by deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, the monthly dependency loss would come to Rs.1,687.50 and annual loss at Rs.20,250/. By adopting the multiplier of 15, the total income under the head of loss of dependency would come to Rs.3,03,750/. But, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,44,000/ under the said head. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Hence, in view of the decision of Sarla Verma's case, the claimants are entitled to additional amount of Rs.5,000/ under the head of funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/ towards loss of estate. Hence, the claimants shall be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.1,74,750/ . So far as income awarded under the other heads are concerned, the same are just and appropriate and hence, are not disturbed.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the appellants of M.A.C.P. No.446/1990 shall be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.174,750/ along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The appeal stand disposed of accordingly.
[K.S. JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/