The respondents filed claim petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara being MACP No.829 of 1995, claiming compensation of Rs.2 Lacs on account of accidental death of Jethiben, wife of claimant No.1 and mother of rest of the claimants; that occurred due to an accident; that took place on 28/04/1995 at Vadodara. The vehicle involved in the accident was bus No.GRU 7667 owned by appellant – Corporation. 2. As per the claimant, the deceased was knocked down by the bus while she was travelling on her Luna bearing No.GJ-6J-1846. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of sole negligence of the driver of the bus. The deceased was working with Vadodara Municipal Corporation and was drawing a salary of Rs.2,600/- as proved through salary certificate Exh.27. It has also been brought on record that had the deceased not met with the accident and had attained the age of superannuation, she would have earned a salary of Rs.6,000/-. The Tribunal considering the prospective rise in income and future imponderable assessed the income at Rs.3,750/- per month of the deceased and after deducting 1/3rd as an expenditure on self by the deceased assessed dependency of the claimants at Rs.2,500/- per month. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 15 for assessing the dependency loss and awarded a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation for loss of dependency. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of expectation of life, Rs.20,000/- towards consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal, thus, awarded total compensation of Rs.4,92,000/- with interest @ 12% from the date of petition till 31/12/1999 and thereafter @ 9%.
3. The Corporation is aggrieved by compensation awarded under the head of dependency loss and, therefore, this appeal.
4. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Vicky Mehta for the appellant and Mr.Hiren Modi for the respondents – original claimants.
5. This Court is taken through the evidence and the judgment. The attention of this Court is drawn towards the decision in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and the decision in the case of K R Madhusudhan & Ors., Vs. Administrative Officer and Anr., reported in 2011 ACJ 743. It may be noted that the Tribunal has assessed the prospective rise in income more or less conservatively, if the decision in case of K R Madhusudhan (Supra) is considered, because there is a specific evidence that had the deceased reached the age of superannuation, she would have earned a salary of Rs.6,000/- and, in such an event not applying the rule of thumb as held in Sharla Verma's case, her actual income ought to have been taken into consideration.
6. Similarly, applying the principles of Sharla Verma's case considering the fact that there were four dependents, the deduction of expenditure on self ought to have been lesser than 1/3rd. Under the circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, with such a concrete evidence, if the Tribunal has assessed income at Rs.3,700/- per month as prospective income with dependency loss of Rs.2,500/-, the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any error in assessing monthly dependency loss. The multiplier adopted is 15, whereas, the decision in case of Sharla Verma would show that a multiplier of 40 could have been adopted. That difference is too minor to be interfered with and, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the judgment and award is just, legal and proper and does not call for any interference. The appeal must fail and stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(A L DAVE, J.) sompura