1. Since all these appeals are arises out of the common judgement and award of the tribunal, therefore, they are decided by this common judgement.
2. By way of these appeals, the appellant- original claimants have challenged the common judgement and award dated 13.03.1992, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur-Ahmedabad, in M.A.C.P. Nos.114 of 1985, 115 of 1985, 32 of 1986 and 31 of 1986, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.1,02,336/- to the claimant of M.A.C.P. No.114 of 1985, Rs.43,570/- to the claimant of M.A.C.P. No.115 of 1985, Rs.20,190/- to the claimant of M.A.C.P. No.32 of 1986 and Rs.29,340/- to the claimant of M.A.C.P. No. 31 of 1986 respectively with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
3. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 04.08.1984, the present appellants were travelling gin a jeep car bearing registration No.GRG-619. At that time one bus bearing registration No.GRS 8043 came from the opposite direction and dashed the said jeep. As a result of the said accident, the appellants sustained grievous injuries, therefore, they filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.114 of 1985, 115 of 1985, 32 of 1986 and 31 of 1986, before the Tribunal for compensation.
3.1. The learned tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petitions and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeals are preferred by the appellants- original claimants.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation to the appellants. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2009(6) SCC, 121 and submitted that the this Court may enhance the compensation.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for both the sides and perused the materials produced on record.
6. From the record it is clear that the appellant of M.A.C.P. No. 114 of 1985 was aged about 35 years at the time of accident. There is no dispute about the income of the appellant which is Rs.2200/- per month. However, it appears from the record that the tribunal has not applied the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Varma and Others (Supra). If it is doubled and added the income, as per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Varma and Ors (Supra) the dependency comes to Rs. 3300/- per month and after deducing 37% disability, which is sustained by the appellant, the 37% amount comes to Rs. 4950/- per annum and if multiplier of 16 is adopted the dependency comes to Rs.79,200/-. Whereas the tribunal has awarded Rs.59,400/- under the head of future loss of income. Therefore, the original claimant entitled to additional amount of Rs. 19,800/- towards future loss of income.
7. So far as M.A.C.P. NO. 115 of 1985 is concerned, at the time of accident the monthly income ofl the appellant was at Rs.1800/- per month. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident the appellant was aged about 43 years, therefore, 30% increase will be applicable in the present case, as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and Others (Supra). The net income comes to Rs.2340/- per month and after deducing 10% disability, which is sustained by the appellant, the 10% amount comes to Rs. 2808/- per annum and if multiplier of 14 is adopted the dependency comes to Rs.39,312/-. Whereas the tribunal has awarded Rs.25,920/- under the head of future loss of income. Therefore, the original claimant is entitled to additional amount of Rs. 13,392/- towards future loss of income.
8. So far as the M.A.C.P. No.32 of 1986 is concerned, the appellant was aged about 38 years at the time of accident and his monthly income was at Rs.500/- per month. It also appears from the record that the tribunal has not applied the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Varma and Others (Supra). If it is doubled and added the income, as per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Varma and Ors (Supra) the dependency comes to Rs. 750/- per month and after deducing 8% disability, which is sustained by the appellant, the 8% amount comes to Rs. 720/- per annum and if multiplier of 15 is adopted the dependency comes to Rs.10,800/-. Whereas the tribunal has awarded Rs.8,640/- under the head of future loss of income. Therefore, the original claimant entitled to additional amount of Rs. 2160/- towards future loss of income.
9. So far as the M.A.C.P. No.31 of 1986 is concerned, the tribunal has also not applied the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Varma and Others (Supra). The income of the appellant was at Rs.980/- per month at the time of accident. If it is doubled and added the income, as per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Varma and Ors (Supra) the dependency comes to Rs. 1470/- per month and after deducing 8% disability, which is sustained by the appellant, the 8% amount comes to Rs. 1411.2 per annum, which is round off to Rs.1411/- per annum and if multiplier of 16 is adopted the dependency comes to Rs.22,576/-. Whereas the tribunal has awarded Rs.14,400/-under the head of future loss of income. Therefore, the original claimant entitled to additional amount of Rs. 8,176/- towards future loss of income.
10. In view of the above, the present appeals are partly allowed. The appellant of F.A. No. 920 of 1993 is entitled to additional amount of Rs.19,800/-, the appellant of F.A. No.921 of 19993 is entitled to additional amount of Rs.13,392/-, the appellant of F.A. No.922 of 1993 is entitled to Rs. 2,160/- and the appellant of F.A. No. 923 of 1993 is entitled to additional amount of Rs. 8,179/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per cent per annum from the date of filing of the applications till realization.
11. The judgement and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. Decree be drawn accordingly in each matter. The present appeals are partly allowed.
pawan [K.S.JHAVERI,J.]