1. The appellants herein have challenged the award dated 30.09.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vaodara in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 57 of 1997 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 3,02,000/- as compensation with interest and costs.
2. It is the case of the appellant that on 29.11.1996 while the Shri Manubhai Patel was standing near S.T. Workshop, an S.T bus bearing registration No. GJZ 124 which was being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner hit him as a result of which Shri Manubhai sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same. The appellants therefore filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 7 lakhs. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
Mr.
Hakim, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased's monthly income is only Rs. 2000/- even though he earned more. He submitted that having regard to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have taken prospective income into account.
4. Mr.
Baghel, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Munshaw for the respondent supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the same is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court.
5. Before proceeding further it is required to be noted that the issue with regard to income is already settled by the decisions of Apex Court. In the case of Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr Vs. Balwant Yadav & Ors, reported in 1996 AIR 1274 (=1996 SCC (3) 179) it is held as under:
"...
Adopting the same scientific yardstick as laid down in the aforesaid judgement, the computation of compensation in the present case can almost be subjected to a well settled mathematical formula. Deceased in the present case, as seen above, was earning gross salary of Rs.1,543/- per month. Rounding it upto figure of Rs.1,500/- and keeping in view all the future prospects which the deceased had in stable military service in the light of his brilliant academic record and performance in the military service spread over 7 years, and also keeping in view the other imponderables like accidental death while discharging military duties and the hazards of military service, it will not be unreasonable to predicate that his gross monthly income would have shot up to at least double than what he was earning at the time of his death, i.e. upto Rs.3,000/- per month had he survived in life and had successfully completed his future military career till the time of superannuation. The average future monthly income could be arrived at by adding the actual gross income at the time of death, namely, Rs.1,500/- per month to the maximum whichhe would have otherwise got had he not died a premature death, i.e. Rs.3,000/- per month and dividing that figure by two. Thus the average gross monthly income spread over his entire future career, had it been available, would work out to Rs.4,500/- divided by 2, i.e. Rs.2,200/-. Rs.2,200/- per month would have been the gross monthly average income available to the family fo the deceased had he survived as a bread winner...."
6. Thus considering the formula laid down in the case of Smt. Sarla Dixit (supra) the income of the deceased is to be calculated. In the present case the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2000/-. Nothing is pointed out to take a different figure in that regard. The said income should be doubled and actual gross income should be added. By doubling, the amount would come to Rs. 4000/- and by adding current income of Rs. 2000/- it would come to Rs. 6000/-. Average monthly income can be derived by dividing the same by 2. Therefore the average income would come to Rs. 3000/- per month.
6.1 In the present case the dependents are four in number and therefore 1/4th amount of computed income is required to be deducted qua personal expenses. Accordingly, the per month dependency loss shall come to Rs. 2250/- per month and Rs. 27000/- per annum.
7. As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), I am of the view that, looking to the age of the claimant, the multiplier of 16 awarded in the present case is on just and proper. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs. 4,32,000/-. As regards the rest of the award under various heads, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 25000/- towards conventional amount. Therefore the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. 4,57,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,02,000/- and therefore in all, an additional amount of Rs. 1,55,000/- is required to be paid to the appellants.
8. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 1,55,000/- alongwith interest at 7.5% from the date of application till realisation. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top