1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 19.03.1986 passed by learned Motor accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Junagadh in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.384 of 1984 wherein the Tribunal has awarded sum of Rs.18000/ along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum form the date of petition till its realization.
2.0 One Kanabhai Devabhai was returning home after grazing cattle.
At that time a matador came and knocked him down. He sustained serious injuries as a result of which he died. The legal heirs therefore preferred the aforesaid claim petition wherein the aforesaid award came to be passed. The present appeal is at the instance of the original claimant for enhancement of compensation.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding the amount of compensation at Rs. 18000/; that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that though deceased Devabhai was earning Rs.600/ per month he was contributing only Rs.100/ per month to his family; that the multiplier applied is on lower side; that the learned Tribunal has committed error in awarding future loss of income at Rs. 6000/ and that the amount of Rs. 7500/ towards pain, shock and suffering is on lower side.
4.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the amount of Rs. 100/ deducted towards the monthly contribution is on lower side. It should be Rs. 400/ per month or Rs. 4800/ per year. He further submitted that the multiplier of 9 ought to have been applied in view of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. According to him, by applying multiplier of 9, the future loss of income of would come to Rs. 43200/ ( Rs. 4800/ x 9). He further submitted that an amount of Rs. 12000/ ought to have been awarded towards pain, shock and suffering.
5.0 Learned advocate for the respondent supported the judgement and award of the learned Tribunal. He submitted that the claimant in his crossexamination stated that the claimant and his family were not completely dependent upon the deceased and therefore, the learned Tribunal considering the same found that the contribution by the deceased to the claimant and his family was Rs. 100/ per month. Further he submitted that the claimant himself stated that the deceased was aged 80 years at the time of accident. In that view of the matter, the multiplier of 5 applied by the learned Tribunal is just and proper since the accident is of the year 1984.
6.0 Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents on record.
7.0 The Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.600/ per month and there is no dispute about the same even by the appellant.
8.0 As regards dependency is concerned the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd. However, in the cross examination it was stated that the claimant and his family are not completely dependent upon the deceased. Therefore the Tribunal has rightly considered Rs.100/ towards contribution to the family.
9.0 It is also found from the record that the deceased was aged 60 years at the time of the accident which is evident form postmortem note at Exh.22. Therefore the Tribunal has taken the multiplier of 5.
10.0 I am therefore in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal. Hence the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*