1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.01.2008 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( Auxi) Fast Track Court No.2, Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 119 of 2005, wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 292500/ along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization and with proportionate costs.
2.0 On 29.08.2008 at about 1.00 a.m. Nareshbhai Bariya was driving motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ.1. EC 5163. Dipakbhai Laxmanbhai Jadav was travelling as pillion rider. The said motorcycle was driven by Nareshbhai in full speed and in rash and negligent manner because of which he lost control over vehicle and the said vehicle slipped and dashed with the divider and due to the impact, both sustained fatal injuries and they died. The parents of the deceased Dipakbhai who are original claimants therefore, filed application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short “the Act”). The Tribunal has passed the aforesaid award in claim petition filed under Section 163A of the Act, which is challenged in this appeal.
3.0 Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in quantifying the award at Rs. 2,92,500/ . He submitted that the Tribunal has awarded excess amount of compensation by wrongly taking the age of the deceased instead of parents. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon decisions of the Apex court in the cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Gurumallamma and another reported in 2009(9) SCALE 764 & National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Shyamsing reported in AIR 2011 SC 3231.
4.0 The Tribunal has gone into the evidence in detail. However, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal seems to be on a higher 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 (supra)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 nonfatal 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 nonearning person, the notional income has been fixed at Rs. 15,000/ per annum.”
4.1 In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shyamsing (supra), the Apex Court has held that while considering the income of the deceased, the age of the parents is required to be considered. 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. 336000/. 1/3rd of Rs. 336000/ would come to Rs. 112000/. Deducting 1/3 from the total income for personal expenses, the amount of dependency loss per annum shall come to Rs.224000/ (Rs. 3,36,000 Rs. 112000/). 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. 228500/ by way of compensation whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,92,500/. Therefore amount of Rs. 64,000/ ( Rs. 292500/ Rs. 228500/) is awarded in excess to the original claimants.
5.0 Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The insurance company is liable to pay Rs. 228500/ as total compensation. The balance amount of Rs. 64000/ along with proportionate interest shall be refunded to the insurance company. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*