This appeal arises out of judgment and award rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surendranagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.434 of 1996 dated 04.09.2004. 2. The claim petition was preferred by present respondent Nos.1 and 2 – claimants claiming compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the accidental death of their son viz., Bhupat, in an accident that occurred on 23.04.1996 involving truck bearing registration No.GJ-3-T-1397. As per the case of the claimants, the deceased was aged about 24 years and was serving as a cleaner on the said truck. He was crushed under the said truck at Kanpar at about 4.00 pm when the driver of the truck took the truck in reverse without blowing the horn or taking any precautions. The deceased was hale and hearty and was earning Rs.1,200/- per month plus Rs.20/- per day by way of allowance.
2.1 Before the Tribunal, the driver and the owner of the vehicle chose not to contest the claim and remained absent. The claim was contested by respondent No.3 – the Insurance Company, who is appellant here. An application under Section 170 was given before the Tribunal, which was granted by the Tribunal and the claim was contested on all counts by the appellants - original respondent No.3 i.e. the Insurance Company.
3. The Tribunal, ultimately, held that the accident occurred because of negligence on the part of the driver of the truck; and that the deceased was earning Rs.1,200/- per month and considered the prospective income of the deceased at Rs.2,400/- per month as per the decision of Apex Court reported in AIR 1994 SC 1631 in case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum versus Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others. After deducting 1/3rd amount as expenditure of self by the deceased, the Tribunal assessed dependency loss of the claimants at Rs.1,600/- per month and adopted multiplier of 15 for assessing dependency loss. The Tribunal, ultimately, assessed the dependency loss at Rs.2,88,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation under the head of conventional amount and Rs.10,000/- as funeral expenses.
4. The Tribunal then went on to the observe that even if the prospective income is taken at Rs.1,800/- per month and dependency loss is taken at Rs.1,200/- per month after deducting 1/3rd of the income as expenditure of self by the deceased and if multiplier of 15 is applied, the claimant is entitled to Rs.2,16,000/- as compensation under the head of dependency. Thereafter, the Tribunal observed that if Rs.50,000/- awarded as conventional amount and Rs.10,000/- awarded as funeral expenses are added, then in that event, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation which exceeded the amount of claim and therefore, awarded the compensation claimed by the claimants i.e. Rs.2,70,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% and cost thereon.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellant - Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. The claim in the appeal is Rs.1,50,000/- on the ground that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding conventional amount of Rs.50,000/-, funeral expenses of Rs.10,000/- and also in computing dependency loss.
6. Having gone through the judgment of the Tribunal and the evidence shown to this Court by the learned advocates for the parties, it appears that the Tribunal while awarding compensation under the head of loss of dependency adopted a multiplier of 15 relying on the decision in case of Jyoti Kaul and Ors., versus State of M.P. and Another, 2002 SCC (Cri.) 1318. It has to be noted that in the said judgment, the Apex Court, after considering the evidence on record, did not interfere with the multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal. In that case, there was specific evidence on the aspect of longevity of family. It is also required to be noted that the said application was under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said judgment does not lay down any absolute proposition of law that the multiplier of 15 has to be adopted where the age of deceased is 15 years. In the instant case, there is no evidence on the aspect of longevity of family, and in the opinion of this Court, if the age of claimant – the father of the deceased is taken, it was 50 years and keeping in light, the decision of the Apex Court in case of Sarla Varma (Smt.) and Others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and other judgments, a multiplier of 10 can reasonably adopted. The Tribunal has calculated dependency loss of Rs.1,200/- per month, which, in the opinion of this Court, is reasonable. Then, the dependency loss per anum would be Rs.14,400/- and adopting a multiplier of 10, the entitlement of the claimant would be Rs.1,44,000/- as dependency loss.
7. Going to the compensation under the head of conventional amount, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the head of conventional amount. In the opinion of this Court, that amount is also inflated and the compensation can reasonably be assessed at Rs.20,000/-. No interference is called for, so far as the funeral expenses of Rs.10,000/- is concerned. The claimants, therefore, would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,74,000/- as under :
(i) Rs.1,44,000/- towards loss of dependency.
(ii) Rs. 20,000/- towards conventional amount.
(iii) Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses.
The claimant would also be entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of deposit by the appellant with proportionate cost.
8. The appeal is, thus, partly allowed reducing the total amount of compensation from Rs.2,70,000/- to Rs.1,74,000/-. No order as to costs.
9. It appears that the claimants have been paid Rs.50,000/- earlier and rest of the amount deposited by the appellant is kept in fixed deposit and the claimants are entitled to withdraw the interest accrued thereon. In light of the fact that a period of 16 years has elapsed after the accident and a period of about seven years has passed after the award, it is directed that the rest of the amount of compensation be paid to the claimants on maturity of term deposit, after computing the amount of interest as above and the balance amount be refunded to the Insurance Company concerned, by account payee cheque, after due verification.
Sd/-
[A.L. Dave, J.] #MH Dave