1. The appellants herein have challenged the award dated 30.06.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Valsad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 188 of 2006 in so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 1,84,500/- by way of compensation to the original claimants along with 8% interest.
2. The claimants filed the claim petition under the provisions of Section 163-A of the M.V. Act to get compensation on structured formula basis and claimed Rs. 4,84,506/- on account of accidental death of one Shri Vijaybhai Patel, who expired due to injuries sustained in the vehicular accident occurred on when he was riding a motorcycle.
3. Mr. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal erred in quantifying the award at Rs. 1,84,500/- . He submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum though admittedly certificate which was produced shows the income as Rs. 4950/- per month. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have atleast considered the monthly income of the Tribunal at Rs. 2000/- in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Gurumallamma and another reported in 2009(9) SCALE 764.
4. Mr. Palak Thakkar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent supported the impugned award and submitted that the award having been passed after considering the evidence in detail does not call for any interference by this Court. He submitted that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income and finally awarded compensation which is just and proper.
5. The Tribunal has gone into the evidence in detail. However, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal seems to be on a lower side. As regards the income of the deceased 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.”
5.1 In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shyamsing, AIR 2011 SC 3231, the Apex Court has held that while considering the income of the deceased, the age of the parents is required to be considered. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 15000/- per annum which according to the aforesaid decision can be fixed for a non-earning person. In the present case the deceased was admittedly earning and therefore Rs. 2000/- ought to have been assessed by the Tribunal.
5.2 Accordingly, considering the notional annual income of Rs. 24000/- per annum and the age of the mother, the datum figure as per the Second Schedule comes to Rs. 2,86,000/-. Deducting 1/3 from the total income for personal expenses, the amount of dependency loss per annum shall come to Rs. 1,91,000/-.
5.2 The claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 2500/- for loss of estate. The claimants shall be entitled to in all Rs. 1,95,500/- by way of compensation whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,84,500/-. Therefore, an additional amount of Rs. 11,000/- is required to be awarded to the original claimants.
6. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 1,95,500/- by way of total compensation. Additional amount of Rs. 11,000/- shall be paid to the claimants at the rate of 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//