1. In connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 04.06.1991 involving a Bus bearing registration No. GRS 8762 belonging to the appellant- Corporation and in which Hitendra expired, the legal heirs of deceased, respondents no.1 to 3 herein, preferred claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.491/1991 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition in party, by judgment and award dated 12.02.1998, whereby, total compensation of Rs.2,98,500/- was awarded along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs.
2. Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has preferred the present appeal mainly on the ground that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of deceased at Rs.8,000/- though the evidence on record establish that his monthly income was Rs.1,200/-. It is submitted that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is also on the higher side and hence, the amount of compensation deserves to be reduced.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. None appears on behalf of respondent no.6. It appears from the record that the deceased was earning Rs.1,200/- plus 17% bonus every month as income prior to his death. The oral evidence of the father of deceased and the salary certificate Exh.24 establish the said fact. In such circumstance, the Tribunal ought not to have assessed the monthly income of deceased at Rs.8,000/-. Now, if we add 17% bonus to the salary of deceased, then the monthly income would come to Rs.1,404/-. By adopting the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121, the prospective income would come to Rs.2,250/- by considering the notional monthly income at Rs.1,500/- instead of Rs.1,404/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor and claimants are the parents, a deduction of ½ is to be made for the purpose of computing dependency benefit. Hence, the monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,125/- and annual loss at Rs.13,500/-. The age of the mother of deceased was 45 years at the time of accident and therefore, a multiplier of 14 is to be adopted, as per the principle rendered in Sarla Verma's case (supra). Thus, the total amount under the head of loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,89,000/-.
4. The claimants shall also be entitled for Rs.10,000/-
under the head of loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- under the head of funeral expenses, over and above, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.500/- awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of loss of expectancy of life and medical expenses respectively. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to get Rs.2,14,500/- [viz.1,89,000 + 10,000 + 5,000 + 10,000 + 500]. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.2,98,500/-. Hence, the excess amount of Rs.84,000/- is required to be refunded to the appellant. So far as the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the same is on the higher side. In my opinion, it would be appropriate to award interest at the rate of 12% per annum considering the present day scenario.
5. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that respondents no.1 to 3, original claimants, will be entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,14,500/- [Rupees Two lacs fourteen thousand five hundred only] along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs. The excess amount of Rs.84,000/- shall be refunded to the appellant. 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/*