1. By way of this appeal, the present appellant-original opponent No.2 has challenged the judgement and award dated 31.01.2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Main), Vadodara, in M.A.C.T.No. 2 of 1990, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.2,72,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 20.10.1989 one Melsing Amarsand Bilkoli @ Merlsikng Amarsing Patanwadiya was boarded the bus bearing registration No.GQE 9586 for going towards Karjan and while he was climbed on the roof for carrying the bags of manure, with the permission of conductor of the bus. In the meanwhile the driver of the said bus started the bus, therefore, Melsing Amarsand Bilkoli fell down from the roof and sustained grievous injuries and due to which he died after 15 days. Therefore, the legal heirs of deceased filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No. 2 of 1990 before the Tribunal for compensation.
2.1. 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 appeal is preferred by the appellant- Corporation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. The Tribunal ought to have believed that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. He further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/5 amount from the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has also committed an error in adopting multiplier of 17. Therefore, he submitted that the award passed by the tribunal is illegal, unjust and required to be quashed and set aside by this Court.
4. Learned Advocate for the respondents submitted that the tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation and the award is just and proper and looking to the assessment made by the tribunal no interference is called for by this Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record as well as the judgement and award of the tribunal. The Tribunal while deciding the claim petition has specifically observed that the deceased was permitted by the conductor of the bus to put the manure bag on the roof of the bus and in the meanwhile the driver has started the bus under the instruction of the conductor and neither the driver nor the conductor has come forward to deny the same. Therefore, I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held entire negligence on the driver of the S.T. bus. However, I find that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/5 amount from the income of the deceased, as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in 2009(6) SCC, 121. There is no dispute about the income of the deceased, which is at Rs.1500/-. If we deduct the 1/5 amount from the income of the deceased, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.1200/- and yearly dependency comes to Rs. 14,400/-. I also find that the multiplier of 17 adopted by the Tribunal is on higher side. As per Sarla Varma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation(Supra) the multiplier of 16 is just and proper. If multiplier of 16 is considered, the dependency comes to Rs. 2,30,400/- whereas the Tribunal has awarded 2,55,000/- under the head of dependency.
6. In that view of the matter the the claimants are only entitled to Rs.2,30,400/- under the head of dependency. Therefore, the excess amount of Rs.24,600/- with interest at the rate of 9% per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till realization. Rest of the award are just and proper therefore they are not disturbed
7. The judgement and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The decree be drawn accordingly. present appeal is partly allowed.
pawan [K.S.JHAVERI,J.]