1. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 07.03.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bhavnagar below Ex. 12 in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1162 of 2000 so far as the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,54,000/- by way of compensation to the original claimants along with 9% interest.
2. It is the case of the claimants that on 17.10.2000 while the deceased daughter of the claimants was standing near the busstand an S.T. Bus bearing registration no. GJ-18-V 3077 driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner hit her as a result of which she sustained severe injuries and ultimately succumbed to those injuries. The claimants being legal representatives of the deceased therefore filed application under Section 163-A for interim compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,60,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Ms. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in quantifying the award at Rs. 1,54,000/- . She submitted that the deceased was minor and that the Tribunal has followed the structured formula as per Second Schedule of the Act mechanically and such reliance has resulted into awarding higher amount to the claimants.
4. The Tribunal has gone into the evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the accident in question happened because of the negligence of the driver of the bus. It is required to be noted that at the time of death of the minor girl, she was 4 years old. As regards the income of the minor is concerned, the issue is now well settled by a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd.
vs. Gurumallamma and another reported in 2009(9) SCALE 764 wherein it is held as under:
“8. Multiplier stricto sensu is not applicable in the case of fatal accident. The multiplier would be applicable only in case of disability in non-fatal accidents as would appear from the Note 5 appended to the Second Schedule. Thus, even if the application of multiplier is ignored in the present case and the income of the deceased is taken to be Rs. 3,300/- per month, the amount of compensation payable would be somewhat between 6,84,000/- to Rs. 7,60,000/-. As the second schedule provides for a structured formula, the question of determination of payment of compensation by application of judicial mind which is otherwise necessary for a proceeding arising out of a claim petition filed under Section 166 would not arise. The Tribunals in a proceeding under Section 163 A of the Act is required to determine the amount of compensation as specified in the Second Schedule. It is not required to apply the multiplier except in a case of injuries and disabilities.
9. The Parliament in laying down the amount of compensation in the Second Schedule, as indicated hereinbefore, in its wisdom provided for payment of some amount which should be treated to be the minimum. It took into consideration the fact that a person's potentiality to earn is highest when he is aged between 25 and 30 years and that is why in case of permanent disability multiplier of 18 has been specified. The very fact that even if the deceased had an income of Rs. 3000/- per month, he being aged about 15 years, would receive a sum of Rs. 60,000/- but if his income was Rs. 40,000/- per annum, his legal heirs and representatives would receive a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-. In the case if any non-earning person, the notional income has been fixed at Rs. 15,000/- per annum.”
5. In view of the above, it is very clear that the Tribunal is not required to strictly apply the multiplier except in a case of injuries and disabilities. Even in injury or disability case, multiplier of 18 has been specified. It is further evident that in case of minor, application of multiplier of 20 is just and reasonable.
6. In the present case, the Tribunal has considered the Second Schedule for compensation for third part fatal/injury cases and considered Rs. 2,25,000/- as the amount of compensation taking into account Rs. 15000/- per annum as income for non earning person and multiplier of 15. The Tribunal however ought to have arrived at a datum figure of Rs. 300000/- after applying multiplier of 20. Deducting 1/3 as dependency benefits the future loss of income comes to Rs. 2,00,000/-. The amount finally awardable shall come to Rs. 2,04,500/- after adding Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2500/- towards loss of estate. The Tribunal however has awarded Rs. 154000/- and therefore there is no scope for further reduction as sought for by the appellant.
7. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//