1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 30.04.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Surendranagar in M.A.C.P. No.722 of 1998 whereby, the claim petition was allowed in part and respondents no.1 to 4, original applicants, were awarded total compensation of Rs.8,45,440/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs.
2. The aforesaid claim petition was filed in connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 01.07.1998 involving a Truck bearing registration No.GJ-3-U-6181 and in which Mangalsinh Jorubhai Jhala had expired.
3. It has been contended by learned counsel Ms. Fozdar on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal has erred in computing compensation under the head of loss of dependency. It is also contended that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded under the head of Conventional amount is highly disproportionate and the same deserves to be reduced. In support of her submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and on a decision of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Takhuben Raghabhai and others, 2008 ACJ 989.
4. Though served, none appears on behalf of the respondents.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It appears from the record that the monthly income of deceased was Rs.4,051/- at the time of accident. While calculating compensation, the Tribunal assessed the monthly prospective income of deceased at Rs.6,025.50. However, the net salary of deceased at the time of accident was Rs.2,380/-. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Apex Court categorically held that a rise of 30% in income is to be considered for calculating prospective income where there is definite evidence of income proof and where the age of deceased is between 30 – 40 years. In this case, the net salary of deceased at the time of accident was Rs.2,380/- and if we add 30% amount, then the prospective monthly income would come to Rs.3,094/-. Since the claimants are four in number, a deduction of 1/4th is to be made towards personal living expenses of deceased. Accordingly, the monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs.2,321/- and annual loss of dependency at Rs.27,852/-. Considering the age of deceased at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier would be 15. By adopting the said multiplier, the total amount under the head of loss of dependency would come to Rs.4,17,780/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,85,440/- under the above head and hence, an amount of Rs.2,67,660/- is required to be reduced from the amount awarded under the head of dependency benefit.
6. I also find the amount awarded under the head of conventional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to be on the higher side. In the case of Takhuben Raghabhai (supra), the amount under the above head is fixed at Rs.25,000/- and I, accordingly, reduce an amount of Rs.75,000/- from the total amount awarded under the head of conventional amount and fix it at Rs.25,000/-. So far as the amounts awarded under the other heads are concerned, the same are just and appropriate. Hence, I find no reasons to disturb the same. Thus, an amount of Rs.3,42,660/- [2,67,660 + 75,000] is required to be reduced from the total amount of compensation.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the original claimants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,02,780/- [8,45,440 – 3,42,660] [Rupees Five lacs two thousand seven hundred eighty only] along with interest and costs, as awarded by the Tribunal. The excess amount of Rs.3,42,660/- shall be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company along with 9% interest per annum. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*