By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellants - original claimants have challenged the judgment and order dated 2nd June 1997 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda in MAC Petition No.1233 of 1986 whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petitions.
2 The short facts of the present appeal are that on the date of the incident i.e. on 21st June 1986 at 5 PM the deceased along with a pillion rider was travelling on his motorcycle bearing No.GJ.M.2788 on Nadiad Petlad Road and when they reached near Padgol bus stand opponent No.1 by driving his car bearing No.GUU 9339 came there from Nadiad side and dashed with the motorcycle due to which deceased received serious injuries and succumbed to the same. Therefore, the claimants have filed aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs.
3 The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs.1500 per month and Rs.18000 per annum and applied multiplier of 15 to arrive at Rs.2,70,000 for determining the dependency benefit. He added Rs.20,000 towards loss of expectancy of life, Rs.10,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs.5,000 towards funeral charges and thereby assessed Rs.3,10,000 to be the total amount of compensation. Out of the same, he deducted 20% towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and awarded Rs.2,48,000 to the claimants, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the claimants praying for enhancement of compensation.
4 Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering future economic prospects of the deceased as he was working as a Part Time Lecturer and has also authored a book on cooperative societies. The deceased was also getting Rs.5,000 from the agricultural land. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that considering the age of the deceased the multiplier adopted is on lower side.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment and award and stated that the judgment and award is just and no interference is called for.
6. The Tribunal ought to have considered future economic prospects and looking to his age, the annual income should have been Rs.27,000 out of which if 1/4th amount is deducted towards his personal expenses, the annual loss of dependency benefit would come to Rs.20,250/-. As per the decision of Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, there should be 16 multiplier. Thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs.3,24,000 under the head of loss of dependency. They are also entitled to Rs.20,000 towards loss of expectation of life, Rs.10,000 towards loss of consortium, Rs.5,000 towards funeral charges and Rs.5,000 towards nursing. Thus, they are entitled to get Rs.3,64,000 as against which the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,10,000/-. Therefore, they are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.54,000. However, as the deceased was negligent to the occurrence of accident to the extent of 20%, the claimants are entitled to get additional compensation of Rs.43,200/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realisation.
7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Judgments and awards passed by the Tribunal are modified to the extent indicated hereinabove.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd Top