1. By way of present First Appeal, the appellant Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has challenged the judgment and award dated 10.7.2000 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in MAC Petition No.689 of 1990, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,46,500/- with 12% interest p.a. and said amount of compensation was ordered to be paid by the appellant herein and therefore, this Appeal.
2. As per the case of the claimant before the learned Tribunal, on 31.7.1990, when the deceased was returning from his duty, at that time one S.T. Bus proceeding to Ahmedabad to Vasai, bearing No.GQY-8745, which was driven by the Driver in rash and negligent manner, had given impact to the deceased and therefore, deceased died. The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- before the learned Tribunal. After considering the evidence led before the learned Tribunal, it has awarded the amount of Rs.3,46,500/- with interest @ 12%.
3. Learned advocate Ms. Patel for the appellant submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is exorbitant and there was no any evidence showing the income of the appellant, even though the learned Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.2000/-. Considering the Rs.4000/- dependency and applying 9 multipliers, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.4,32,000/- towards future loss of income. She further submitted that in this case, learned Tribunal held 25% negligence on the part of the deceased and therefore, after deducting Rs.1,08,000/-, the amount of compensation of Rs.3,46,500/- has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. She also submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside.
4. Learned advocate for the claimants has supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. As per his submission, no interference is required to be called for by this Court.
5. Perused the record of the case and considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have minutely perused the award of the learned Tribunal, in which learned Tribunal considered Rs.4000/- dependency per month, which is much more on higher side, as there is no proof of income regarding the income of the deceased on which the Tribunal counted the said head. Therefore, I am of the view that if the dependency to the tune of 50% would be considered as Rs.2000/- per month then it would be just and proper. The yearly dependency would come to Rs.24,000/- and considering age of the deceased and the aspect of future loss of income, if the deceased would alive, 11 multiplier is proper and therefore, Rs.2,64,000/- would come as loss of dependency to the legal heirs of the deceased. As per the Tribunal's observation, 25% negligence on the part of the deceased, Rs.1,98,000/- would come as net amount of dependency. It would be proper to award Rs.25,000/- towards conventional amount in place of Rs.10,000/- as loss of expectations + Rs.10,000/- loss of consortium + Rs.2500/- towards funeral expenses as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, Rs.2,23,000/- is total compensation, for which the claimants are entitled. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.3,46,500/- as compensation and therefore, the appellant is entitled to get the refund of Rs.1,23,000/- (Rs.3,46,500/- minus Rs.2,23,000/-) with interest and costs.
6. In view of the above observation, the Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) ynvyas Top