1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bharuch in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.576 of 2001, under Section 163-A of the Act, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,79,500/- to original claimants with running interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the application till its realization.
2. The facts of the case is that on 11.03.2001, the deceased was going on scooter No.GJ-16-E-4316 as pillion rider and at that time, one truck No.GQG- 7999, driven by original opponent No.1 came from opposite side and dashed with the scooter. As a result, the deceased sustained injuries, which succumbed to death. Therefore, the appellants filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act being Motor Accident Claims Petition No.576 of 2001 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharuch for compensation.
3. The Tribunal, after hearing learned advocate for the parties and after considering the evidence produced on record, decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated herein above, against which present appeal is preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has erred in assessing annual income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-. He has submitted that the Tribunal ought to have relied upon the documentary evidence, produced before the Tribunal and assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,800/-. He has further contended that the Tribunal ought to have followed the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In support of this submission, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of “NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. GURUMALLAMMA & ANR.”, reported in 2009(16) SCC 43.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
6. So far as the issue of quantum is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-. In my view the Tribunal ought to have considered the affidavit filed by the appellant No.1 at Exh.15 and affidavit of one Niranjan K. Panchal at Exh.18 to the extent that the deceased was working in his shop and her monthly income was between Rs.1700/- to 1800/-
p.m. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is required to be considered at Rs.1,800/-. The Tribunal ought to have followed the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, when the claim petition was decided under Section 163-A of the Act, considering the decision of the Apex Court in case of GURUMALLAMMA & ANR.(Supra). Hence, applying the second schedule of the Act, the appellants would be entitled for Rs.3,38,000/- under the head of dependency, considering the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.1,800/- per month and aged about 32 years. Now, deducting 1/3 amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the appellants are entitled to Rs.2,25,000/- under the head of dependency.
7. The Tribunal was justified in awarding Rs.2,500/- under the head of loss of estate, Rs.2,000/- under the head of funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- under the loss of consortium. Therefore, the appellants are in all entitled for Rs.2,34,500/- [Rs.2,25,000/- + Rs.2,500/- + Rs.2,000/- + Rs.5,000/-] from the respondent. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,79,500/- to the appellants.
8. In that view of the matter, the appellants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs.55,000/- [Rs.2,34,500/- - Rs.1,79,500/-] with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of application till realization. Rest of the award stands unaltered.
9. The appeal is partly allowed. Decree be drawn accordingly.
..mitesh..
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.]