1.0 Mr. Archana Patel, learned advocate appears for the appellant.
2.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 16.11.1995 passed by learned Motor accident Claims Tribunal. Jamnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 263 of 1988 wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.265500/ along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.
3.0 On 28.09.1988 S.T. Bus No. G.R.U. 7640 was going from Jamnagar. When it reached at Lalpur, there was heavy rain and flood in the river Dhandhar. When the bus reached on the bridge of the river Dhandhar, it turned turtle. As a result of this, some of the passengers fell down in the river and died and some passengers received injuries. In the present case, Naranbhai Sagar died. The heirs of the deceased therefore, filed the aforesaid claim petition wherein the aforesaid award came to be passed which is challenged in the present petition.
4.0 Learned Advocate for the appellantCorporation contended that the learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating the evidence led by the appellant; that the driver of the appellant Corporation at no point of time, had confessed that the death of the deceased occurred because of his negligent; that the learned Tribunal ought to have attributed contributory negligence.
5.0 Learned advocate for the appellant Corporation contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of Rs. 1600/ in absence any cogent and reliable evidence.
6.0 Learned advocate for the respondent supported the judgement and award of the learned Tribunal and submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.
7.0 Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents on record.
8.0 As far as negligence is concerned, it is found that inspite of say of the passengers of the bus not to pass through the bridge on the river Dhandhar which was overflooded due to heavy rain, the S.T. Driver drove the bus towards bridge and lost control over the bus and the bus turned turtle and the accident has occurred. Thus from the aforesaid fact it is established that the driver of the S.T. Is sole negligent for the accident. Hence, no interference is warranted in that regard.
9.0 As far as income is concerned, there is no cogent, reliable evidence with respect to the income. In that view of the matter by considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of Rs. 1600/ per month. There are five dependents in the family and therefore, 1/4th is required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. By deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, the dependency loss would come to Rs. 1200/ per month and Rs. 14400/ per year. As far as multiplier is concerned, the multiplier of 15 applied by the learned Tribunal is on lower side. Looking to the age of the deceased as 35 years at the time accident and in view of decision in case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, multiplier of 16 should have been applied. By applying multiplier of 16 years, the future loss of income would come to Rs.230400/(Rs. 14400/x 16).
10.0 Further the claimants are entitled to Rs. 10000/ towards loss to the estate, Rs. 10000/ towards loss of consortium and Rs. 5000/ towards funeral expenses.
11.0 In view of the above, the total compensation would come to Rs.
255400/ ( Rs. 230400/ towards future loss of income + Rs. 10000/ towards loss of consortium + Rs. 10000/ towards loss to the estate + Rs. 5000/ towards funeral expenses). However, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in sum of Rs. 265500/. Therefore, an excess amount of Rs. 10100/ shall be refunded to the appellant Corporation with the proportionate cost. The award is modified accordingly. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*