1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 05.08.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Aux.], Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No. 199 of 1992, whereby the claim petition was allowed and original claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs. 3.00 lacs along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the application till its realization and proportionate costs.
2. The facts in brief are that on 15.06.1991, while Madhuben was returning in a tempo bearing no. GQB 7140, at a particular place, the driver of the car bearing no. GJ16978 in a rash and negligent manner, applied sudden breaks as a result of which the accident in question took place and said Madhuben expired on the spot. The legal heirs of the deceased, respondents herein filed claim petition,which came to be allowed, by way of the impugned award. Hence, this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the Tribunal has erred in appreciating the aspect of negligence. He submitted that the accident occurred on account of sole negligence of the driver of the motor car and not by the driver of the tempo. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned 100% negligence or in at least in excess of 50% on the driver of the motor car.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents claimants supported the impugned award. On the quantum he submitted that the Tribunal has erred in computing income under the head of dependency benefit since the total number of claimants are four.
5. Having gone through the record of the case, it appears that the Tribunal while holding the driver of the motor car and tempo negligent to the extent of 50 : 50 has recorded a finding that the driver of the motor car was driving the vehicle in an excess speed and had applied the breaks all of a sudden. He has also recorded the finding that had the tempo being driven in a moderate speed, he could have averted the accident when the driver of the motor car had applied breaks immediately. In other words, it was found that both the vehicles were not being driven in a moderate speed. Considering the facts of the case and the panchnama of the scene of accident, I find that the issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is just and proper and I confirm the same.
6. However, so far as the aspect of dependency benefit is concerned, I find that the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd amount towards the personal expenses, which is erroneous and contrary to the principle laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121. wherein it has been held that deduction of 1/4th amount is required to be done. The annual income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/ is just and proper considering the facts of the case. Thus, after deducting 1/4th amount towards personal expenses, the annual dependency benefit would come to Rs.11,250/. However, the multiplier of 18 adopted by the Tribunal is on higher side and also contrary to the decision rendered in the case of Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176, wherein multiplier of 12 has been provided for claimants of the age of 25 years. By adopting the said multiplier the total income under the head of loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,35,000/ [Rs.11,250 x 12]. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,89,332/. Hence, the excess amount is required to be refunded. So far as the compensation under the other heads are concerned, the same are just, legal and appropriate and hence are not disturbed.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the claimant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,14,000/ as against total compensation of Rs.3,14,332/. Out of the aforesaid amount, the Insurance Company will be liable to pay 50% of the total compensation. The excess amount shall be refunded to the appellant Insurance Company. The appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
[K.S. JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/