1 By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 25th January 1999 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Baroda in MAC Petition No.882 of 1992 whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant.
2 The short facts of the present appeal are that deceased Sumanbhai Jashbhai Patel was going on Scooter bearing No.GJ7 B 2513 as pillion rider from Halol to Vadodara. It is further the case of the claimant that when the said Scooter came near the place of accident, between Halol and Jarod, a truck bearing No.GJ1 T 4418 came there with excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the Scooter. As a result of the said impact, deceased Sumanbhai sustained serious injuries and he was removed to SSG Hospital, Vadodara for treatment where, during the course of treatment, he lost his life. The claimant filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000 under different heads.
3 On the point of contributory negligence the Tribunal has discussed evidence in paragraph 12 of the judgment wherein he observed that the driver of the truck had not caused appearance despite being served with the notice. The Tribunal having considered the evidence of the rider of the Scooter at Exhibit 37 while disbelieving the contention of the appellant that the Scooterist was negligent to the extent of 50% for the occurrence of the accident, held the Driver of the Truck to be solely negligent for the accident. On the point of income, the Tribunal has considered income of the claimant including future economic prospects at Rs.1800 per month out of which deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and and awarded Rs.14,000 per annum. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 18 and thereby calculated the dependency benefit at Rs.2,52,000. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.25,000 under the head of pain, shock and suffering, Rs.25,000 towards medicines and misc. expenses and Rs.2,500 towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all, Rs.3,04,500 was awarded.
4 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount of income assessed is on higher side and it should not exceed Rs.1300 per month. Learned counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the future economic prospects.
5 The Tribunal ought not to have considered the income of the deceased more than Rs.1300 per month and has wrongly considered Rs.500 income from the sale of vegetables. Even if we consider the future economic prospects, then it should come to Rs.1950 per month. Out of the same, as the deceased is unmarried one-half should be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, the claimant is entitled to loss of dependency at Rs.975 per month and if the multiplier of 13 is adopted, the claimants will be entitled to Rs.1,52,000 under the head of future economic loss. Over and above, the claimant is entitled to Rs.25,000 under the head of pain, shock and suffering, Rs.25,000 towards medicines and misc. expenses and Rs.2,500 towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled to Rs.207,000 as against Rs.3,04,500 which was awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, there is an excess amount of Rs.97,400 which is required to be refunded to the appellant with interest and costs. The judgment and award of the the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is allowed partly with no order as to costs.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd