1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 31.08.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.VII), Ahmedabad at Mirzapur in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.1240 of 1988 wherein the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the aforesaid claim petition preferred by the claimant by awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 250100/ along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application till realization.
2.0 On 20.07.1988, Bharatbhai Narsinhhai Patel was going to Dholka Chaloda road by walking on the left side of the road. At that time S.T bus No. GRT 7402 came from the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed with Bharatbhai. As a result of this, he sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, widow of the deceased who had remarried and the parents filed the aforesaid claim petition wherein the learned Tribunal passed the aforesaid award which is challenged in the present appeal.
3.0 Learned advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal has committed error in awarding the future loss of income on the basis of the age as 22 years of the widow of the deceased who has remarried. She submitted that the age of the mother is required to be considered in case where the parents are the claimants. According to her, since the parents are the claimants 50% is required to be deducted. The Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs.23000/ per year. 50% of Rs.23000/ would come to Rs. 11500/. By deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses, the dependency loss would come to Rs.11500/. Considering the age of 50 years, 13 multiplier ought to have been applied. By applying multiplier of 13 years in view of decision of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, the future loss of income would come to Rs. 149500/.
5.0 Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record.
6.0 As far as income is concerned, there is documentary proof that the deceased was earning Rs. 1000/ and moreover considering the education of the deceased that he was graduate on the commerce side his prospective income can be taken minimum at Rs.1500/ per month and moreover he was also looking after the agricultural work and the agricultural income was Rs.5000/. The Tribunal keeping in mind the fact and from the evidence on record and also contribution toward agricultural work, his income can be counted at Rs. 5000/ per year and therefore, Rs. 23000/ per year would be just and proper for calculation of future economic loss. 50% of Rs. 23000/ would come to Rs. 11500/. By deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses, the dependency loss would come to Rs. 11500/. Considering the age of 50 years, 13 multiplier ought to have been applied. By applying 13 years multiplier in view of decision of Sarla Verma( Supra), the future loss of income would come to Rs. 149500/. Learned advocate for the respondent is not in a position to controvert the same.
7.0 Further, the claimants are entitled for Rs.1000/ towards loss to the estate and Rs.5000/ towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs. 164500/.
8.0 In the premise aforesaid, it is held that appellant is liable to make payment of Rs. 164500/ as compensation at the rate of 12% per annum. However, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,50,000/. Therefore, the excess amount of Rs. 85500/ ( Rs. 250000/ Rs. 164500/) along with proportionate cost and interest will be refunded to the appellant. The award of the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly. Appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs.
(K.S .JHAVERI, J.) niru*