This appeal is filed under Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, `the Act, 1988'] by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 30.10.1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vadodara at Vadodara in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.1713 of 1992 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,45,000/- with running interest @12% per annum from the date of application till realization against the opponent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under.
2.1 On 29.09.1992 the deceased Chandrakant Ambalal Patel was going from Race Course to Gotri Road on his moped bearing No. GBV-1113. He was going on the left side of the road with moderate speed. At about 10-15 a.m State Transport bus bearing No.GRU-7652 of Vadodara-Ankodiya route came from back side, which was driven by the opponent No.1 in negligent manner, with full speed and in violation of the traffic rules dashed with the moped of the deceased. The State Transport bus ran over the deceased-Chandrakant Patel and he died on the spot. Therefore, the claimants who are legal representatives and heirs of the deceased have filed the claim petition against both the opponents respectively in the capacity of the driver and the owner of the bus and put their claim on different grounds for the purpose of compensation and claimed in all Rs.11,00,000/-. It is averred in the petition that the deceased was employee of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation and was working as Supervisor and drawing salary of Rs.2,500/- p.m. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased has also got agricultural land of 10 acres jointly with other members of the Hindu Family and was earning Rs.40,000/- p.a and also he was making supervision work and used to visit weekly to the fields of together agriculturists as he was expert in the agriculture work and his yearly income was Rs.80,000/- to Rs.90,000/-. Further, it is stated that on account of accidental death of the deceased, the applicant No.1 has to live a life of widow and to pass a miserable life, Rs.1,000/- is claimed towards transportation to take the deceased body of the deceased from Vadodara to his village of the deceased and Rs.20,000/- towards funeral ceremony, in all Rs.11,00,000/- was claimed by the claimants.
2.3 In defence, the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, mainly urged that no evidence is there on record about negligence on the part of the S.T. Bus driver and further the income of the deceased, as claimed at Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9,000/- was also disputed.
3. On perusal of the record of the case, the Tribunal calculated that driver of the offending S.T. bus was fully negligent and further in the cross-objection it was admitted that police complaint was lodged against him for the alleged incident and immediately he was arrested. Therefore, the vital injury to the person, who succumbed to the injuries and died on the spot due to accident is not disputed.
4. So far as income of the decease, as per the monthly salary certificate of the deceased, he was serving on the post of Supervisor and was getting monthly salary of Rs.2,455/- p.m. It was also brought on record of the Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs.500/- p.m. By way of part time job and was getting agricultural income to the tune of Rs.500/- p.m. Thus, total amount of Rs.3,415/- was established and annual salary was therefore Rs.40,980/-. The family unit consisted of 5 persons and accordingly deduction was permitted towards personal expenses of Rs.735/- and relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Ritaben v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation reported in 1998 GLH 670 future loss of income was considered. Since the application was under Section 163A of the Act, 1988, on the basis of structure formally, the Tribunal held as under:
"9. Now the deceased was 40 years old at the time of accident. So the multiplier which should be adopted in view of guidelines provided in IInd Schedule to section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Now the mean loss of future income of the deceased Rs.45,000/- be multiplied by multiplier of 16, it would come to Rs.7,20,000/-. This would be the amount of future loss of income, the applicants be awarded. With plus Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium, due to the accidental death of the deceased, applicant No.1 has to live the life of widow. Plus Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, plus Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses etc. It should be granted to them. I am supported in the above view by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala Road Transport Corporation v. Shusma Thomas, 1994 ACJ page 1. So, in this MAC case the applicants are entitle to get compensation amount as shown below.
Rs.7,20,000/- towards future loss of income Rs.0,10,000/- towards loss of consortium Rs.0,10,000/- towards loss of estate Rs.0,05,000/- towards funeral expenses
---------------
Rs.7,45,000/- Total"
Total amount of Rs.7,45,000/- @12% with costs from the date of application was awarded.
5. In this appeal, learned advocate for the appellant has reiterated the defence raised by his counter-part in the Tribunal and in addition to the above, it is submitted that the Tribunal erred in relying on the income criteria of the deceased in absence of evidence on record and ought not to have considered part time income of Rs.500/- pm from the agricultural activities of Rs.500/- pm. It is also submitted that multiplier of 16 applied by the Tribunal looking to the age of the deceased at the time of accident being 40 years, is on the higher side. No other contention was raised.
6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by leaned advocates for the parties and on perusal of the record, no error appears on record of the Tribunal in awarding the compensation of Rs.7,45,000/- with interest @12% pm after considering documentary evidence of income of the deceased aged 40 years, who was serving in the capacity of Supervisor with Vadodara Municipal Corporation and who had also agricultural land, out of which he was deriving monthly income of Rs.500/- pm and further by doing part time job he was earning Rs.500/- pm. The other aspects about family unit and deduction towards personal income of the deceased are not in dispute. Therefore, I find no justification to interfere in this appeal in exercise of powers under Section 173 of the Act, 1988.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, Cross Objection No.22 of 2001 also stands disposed of.
[Anant S. Dave, J.] *pvv Top