1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 06.10.1992 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Valsad at Navsari in M.A.C.P. No.479/1988 whereby, the claim petition was partly allowed and the appellants, original claimants, were awarded total compensation of Rs.97,100/ 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 Kantilal Hariprasad was serving as a Driver with the Customs Department at Valsad. On 23.06.1987, in the morning hours, while Kantilal Hariprasad was on duty and driving the Jeep of the Department bearing registration No. MMG 3004, it was dashed by a Truck bearing registration No. GRS 4132 driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3Insurance Company. As a result of the said accident, Kantilal Hariprasad sustained severe bodily injuries and died during the course of treatment. The other passengers travelling in the Jeep also sustained bodily injuries. His legal heirs filed the claim petition, which came to be partly allowed by way of the impugned award. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimants have preferred the present appeal for enhancement.
3. The main grounds on which the claimants have prayed for enhancement is that the assessment of negligence at 50 : 50 by the Tribunal is erroneous and that no rise in future income has been considered while computing income under the head of future loss.
4. Heard learned counsel Ms. Bhavsar for the appellants. None appears on behalf of the respondents. On the issue of negligence, it appears from the panchnama of the place of accident that the accident took place at a curve. It also appears that had the driver of the Jeep held its position on the road and had driven the Jeep on the correct side, then the accident could have been averted. The Truck, being a heavy vehicle, ought to have been driven in a careful manner while it was negotiating a curvaceous road. Looking to the totality of facts, I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly apportioned the negligence at 50 : 50.
5. However, so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it appears from the document (Exhibit15) that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.1,539/. The deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of accident. However, while computing future income, I find that the Tribunal has not assessed the rise in future income, 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. Considering the age of the deceased, a rise of 30% in income has to be assessed while calculating future loss of income, which would come to Rs.2,000/. Now, if we deduct 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses, the monthly dependency benefit would come to Rs.1,333/ and the annual dependency benefit at Rs.15,996/, which is rounded off to Rs.16,000/. By adopting the multiplier of 15, the total dependency benefit would come to Rs.2,40,000/. However, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,80,000/ under the head of loss of dependency benefit, which means that the appellants shall be entitled for additional amount of Rs.60,000/ under the said head. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of funeral expenses. In view of decision rendered in Sarla Verma's case (supra), the appellants shall be entitled for Rs.5,000/ under the head of funeral expenses. Thus, the appellants shall be entitled for additional amount of Rs.65,000/ but, if we deduct 50% amount towards negligence, the balance amount would come to Rs.32,500/, which the claimants are, ultimately, entitled for.
6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants, original claimants, shall be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.32,500/ [Rupees Thirty two thousand five hundred only] 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 stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*