1. By way of this appeal, the appellants-original claimants have challenged the judgement and award dated 23.12.1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Auxiliary), Dhrangadhra, in M.A.C.P. No.66 of 1998(old M.A.C.P. No.387 of 1990), whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.1,12,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that one Siddikhan was serving as a cleaner in a Truck bearing registration No. GTY-4969. On 09.05.1998, when Siddikhan was returning from Ahmedabad he met with an accident, and due to the said accident, Siddikhan sustained grievous injuries and due to which he died. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.66 of 1998(old M.A.C.P. No.387 of 1990). The Tribunal after hearing learned advocates for the respective parties and after considering the evidence on record 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 assessing monthly income of the deceased. He further contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation under the head of conventional amount. Therefore, he prayed to allow this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contentions of learned advocate for the appellants and contended that the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has passed the impugned award, therefore, he prayed to dismiss the present appeal.
5. I have heard learned advocates for both the parties and perused the material on record. From the record it is clear that the tribunal has not not calculated the income of the deceased as per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Dixit and Another Vs. Balwant Yadav and Another reported in (1996) 3 SCC 179. There is no dispute about the income of the deceased, which is Rs. 600/- per month. If it is doubled and added the income it would come to Rs. 900/-. After deducting 1/3 amount towards personal expenses which would have been spent by the deceased on himself, monthly dependency comes to Rs.600/- and accordingly annually it comes to Rs. 7200/-. If multiplier of 17 is adopted, the dependency comes to Rs.1,22,400/-, whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,02,000/- under the aforesaid head. I also find that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- under the head of conventional amount. I am of the view that if an additional amount of Rs.15,000/- is granted, the same would met ends of justice.
6. In that view of the matter, the claimants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.20,400/- under the head of loss of dependency and Rs.15,000/- under the head of conventional amount. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to additional amount of Rs. 35,400/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7 ½ per cent from the date of filing of the application till realization.
7. The judgement and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. Decree be drawn accordingly. The present appeal is partly allowed.
[K.S.JHAVERI,J.] pawan Top