1. By way of this appeal, the present appellants-original claimants have challenged the judgement and award dated 28th August, 2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surendranagar, in M.A.C.P. No.108 of 1993, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.2,29,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 07.09.1992 an accident occurred and due to the accident one Bharatsinh Bhikhubhai expired on the spot. Therefore, the heirs of the deceased filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.108 of 1993, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, for compensation. The learned tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellants-original claimants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the tribunal has committed an error in deducting 1/3 amount from the income of the deceased. The Tribunal ought to have deducted ¼ amount from the income of the deceased. He further contended the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on lower side, it should be 18. Therefore, he submitted that the award passed by the tribunal is illegal, unjust and required to be enhanced by this Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record as well as the judgement and award of the tribunal. There is no dispute about the monthly income of the deceased, which is at Rs.1800/- per month. I find that the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 1/3 amount from the income of the deceased. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2009(6) SCC, 121, the tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4 amount, as the claimants are four in number. If the income of the deceased is calculated at Rs.1800/- per month after deducting 1/4 amount, the net amount comes to Rs.1350/- per month and accordingly yearly income comes to Rs.16,200/-. Further, the Tribunal has committed an error in adopting the multiplier of 15. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma(supra) it should be 18. If multiplier of 18 is considered, the dependency come to Rs. 2,91,600/-. Over and above, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards conventional amount. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.3,16,600/-, whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,29,000/-.
5. In that view of the matter, the claimants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.87,600/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7 ½ per cent from the date of filing of the application till realization.
6. The judgement and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The decree be drawn accordingly. present appeal is partly allowed.
[K.S.JHAVERI,J.] pawan Top