These appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 11th January 1996 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(Aux-II), Kheda at Nadiad in MAC Petitions Nos.2100 of 1990 and 2459of 1990 that have been filed by the claimants.
2 The short facts of the present case are to the effect that one Sunilkumar Rameshchandra Bhatt died on account of injuries sustained in a motor accident which occurred on 18th July 1990 involving an ST Bus bearing No.GJ-1-T-9960 belong to the the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. AT the time of the accident, the deceased was returning form Anand to Umresh on his scooter bearing No.GJ-7-3242. When the said Scooter came on Ashipura-Lingda Road the ST Bus came in an excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction and dashed with the scooter of the deceased because of which deceased died on the spot. One Arunkumar Chimanlal Thaker was also travelling as a pillion rider on the said Scooter who also received grievous injuries in the said accident. Therefore, the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Sunilkumar R Bhatt filed Claim Petition No.2100 of 1990 whereas injured Arunkumar Thaker filed Claim Petition No.2459 of 1990.
3 At the time of the accident deceased was 32 years old and was working as Work-Charge Clerk in Mahi Canal, Ode Division at Umresh. His salary was Rs.1662 per month and other benefits. His widow, two minor children and parents filed a claim for Rs.10 lakhs before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kheda at Nadiad. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 11th January 1996 allowed the claim in part. The Tribunal calculated the compensation by taking the mean monthly salary between the present salary and the salary on the date on which the petitioner reaches the age of superannuation and arrived at Rs.3500 per month. It deducted 1/3rd salary towards his personal expenses and thereafter looking to his age applied the multiplier of 15 and awarded Rs.4,21,200 under the head of future economic loss. By adding Rs.20,000 under the head of loss of expectation of life, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.5,000 towards funeral and transportation expenses, the total compensation was determined as Rs.4,96,200/-
4 As regards the claim of pillion rider in MAC Petition No.2459 of 1990, as he suffered injury of left knee joint and other parts of body and there was whole body disability of 7.5%, he was granted Rs.20,000 under the head of pain, shock and suffering. As his salary was Rs.2448 per month, his future economic loss was calculated at Rs.183.60 per month and Rs.2203.20 per annum. He, then, applied multiplier of 10 looking to the age of 40 years of the claimant. Thus, he awarded Rs.22,032 under the head of future economic loss. By adding Rs.7344 towards actual loss of income and Rs.2,000/-- towards treatment, attendance and transportation charges, the total compensation was determined as Rs.51,376 and restricted the same to Rs.50,000 looking to the claim amount of Rs.50,000 as claimed by the claimant .
5 The appellant - original opponent No.2 - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has challenged the said common judgment and award by filing these appeals. First Appeal No.1101 of 1996 arises out of MAC Petition No.2100 of 1990 whereas First Appeal No.1102 of 1996 arises out of MAC Petition No.2459 of 1990.
6 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7 Mr Hemant Shah, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in not appreciating the evidence of the Driver of the ST Bus and more particularly when a specific case was put up by the appellant that accident was not result of sole negligence on the part of the Driver of the ST Bus and there is a contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the Scooter. As against that, learned counsel for the claimants of MAC Petition No.2100 of 1990, Mr Thakore contended that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd amount from the salary of the deceased and it should be 1/4th amount looking to the number of claimants. He has also contended that looking to the judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009 6 SCC 121 higher multiplier ought to have been adopted.
8. Mr Hakim, learned counsel for the claimant of MAC Petition No.2459 of 1990 has contended that the Tribunal has not considered future rise of income and at least 30% income rise should have been considered. He further contended that the Tribunal has committed error in adopting the multiplier of 10 only and it should be at least 13 looking to the age of the claimant.
9. The submission of Mr Salil M Thakore, learned counsel for the claimants in MAC Petition No.2100 of 1990 that the Tribunal ought to have deducted only 1/4th amount towards personal expenses is required to be accepted. However, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal of 15 is on higher side and it should not be greater than
13. Further, Rs.20,000/- awarded under the head of loss of estate as also Rs.50,000/- under the head of loss of consortium are on higher side. Instead, the claimant is entitled to the following amounts :-
Future Economic Loss Rs.4,09,500 Loss of Consortium Rs. 10,000 Loss of Expectation of life Rs. 10,000 Funeral & Transportation Expenses Rs.
5,000
--------------------------------
Rs.4,34,500 Thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,34,500 as against the awarded amount of Rs.4,96,000/-.
10. As far as First Appeal No.1102 of 1996, arising out of MAC Petition No.2495 of 1990, the claimant therein had suffered 7.5% permanent partial whole body disability. Considering the submission of Mr Hakim regarding 30% income rise, then the monthly salary of the injured would come to Rs.3250. Thus, the future economic loss would come to Rs.243.75 per month and to Rs.2925 per annum. Applying the multiplier of 13 the amount under the head of future economic loss would come to Rs.38,025/- The amount of Rs.20,000 awarded under the head of Pain, Shock and Suffering is on higher side considering the fact that he was hospitalised for a period of 15 days and took leave for 3 months. It should not have been more than Rs.10,000/-. Over and above the same, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.7344 towards actual loss of income during the treatment and Rs.2000 under the head of transportation expenses and attendant charges. Since the claim of the claimant is restricted to Rs.50,000/- no interference is called for in First Appeal No.1102 of 1996.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the judgment and award dated 11th January 1996 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Aux-II), Kheda at Nadiad in MAC Petitions Nos.2100 of 1990 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,96,000 to the claimants is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,34,500/-. The excess amount of Rs.61,700/- is ordered to be refunded to the insurance company. First Appeal No.1101 of 1996 is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
12. Further, the Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The same is excessive looking to the decisions of the Apex Court and the same shall not be awarded more than 12%. Hence, it is required to be reduced and accordingly the rate of interest awarded is reduced to 12% per annum from 15% in both the appeals. The excess amount of 3% of interest will be refunded back to the appellant-insurance company if the same is deposited by the appellant with the Tribunal.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd Top