1. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 20.11.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Junagadh in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 818 of 1993 so far as the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,32,000/- by way of compensation to the original claimants along with 9% interest.
2. It is the case of the appellants that while Shri Jentilal Vyas was travelling in a S.T. Bus bearing registration no. GJ-1-Z-2376 driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the deceased sustained serious injuries on account of a branch of tree hurting him near the window where he was sitting. He succumbed to those injuries. The claimants being legal heirs and representatives of the deceased therefore filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
Mr.
Nagesh Sood, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal did not consider the aspect of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. He submitted that the deceased had put his head out of the window and therefore the accident happened. He submitted that in such an event no negligence can be attributed to the appellant corporation.
3.1 Mr.
Sood further submitted that the Tribunal erred in quantifying the award at Rs. 1,34,000/- . He submitted that the dependency loss of Rs. 1,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and therefore the same is required to be reduced. He also submitted that the Tribunal erred in considering the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1500/- in absence of any cogent evidence on record. He submitted that even the multiplier adopted is on higher side.
4. Mr.
Sharma, learned advocate appearing for the respondent supported the impugned award and submitted that the award having been passed after considering the evidence in detail does not call for any interference by this Court. He submitted that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased. He submitted that in fact the Tribunal failed to consider the prospective income of the deceased and thereby awarded less compensation.
5. The Tribunal has gone into the evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the accident in question happened because of the negligence of the appellant Corporation. The Tribunal has considered the fact that the Conductor of the bus has admitted in the cross examination that he had not stated before the police that the deceased had taken his head out to spit and therefore the branch of tree hit him. The Tribunal considered the injuries on chest of the deceased and thereby came to the conclusion that the negligence was entirely on the part of the original opponent no. 1. This court is in complete agreement with the same.
6. However, the amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal seems to be on a higher side. The Tribunal has observed that there is no documentary evidence on record to show the actual income and therefore the Tribunal has assessed the income of Rs. 1500/- per month which is just and proper. Accordingly, the income comes to Rs. 18,000/- per annum. The loss of dependency per annum shall come to Rs. 12000/-.
6.1 Considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 10 adopted in the present case is on higher side. The appropriate multiplier ought to have been 7. Accordingly the future dependency loss shall come to Rs. 84,000/-. Against this, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,20,000/- which is excessive.
7. As regards the rest of the award under various heads, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses. The appropriate amount shall be Rs. 5000/- and therefore an additional amount of Rs. 3000/- is required to be paid under the said head. Therefore the claimants are in all entitled to Rs. 99,000/- as compensation (Rs. 84,000 for future loss of income + Rs. 10000 towards conventional amount and Rs. 5000 for funeral expenses).
8. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled to only Rs. 99,000/- by way of total compensation. The balance amount of Rs. 33,000/- along with proportionate interest at 9% shall be refunded to the appellant. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top