1. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 15.05.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Patan in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 58 of 2007 so far as the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,04,500/- by way of compensation to the original claimants along with 9% interest.
2. It is the case of the claimants that while minor Aslamkhan was travelling in a jeep bearing registration no. GJ-3Y 7596 the jeep was driven in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the accident happened and the deceased sustained serious injuries. He succumbed to those injuries. The claimants being legal heirs and representatives of the deceased therefore filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,84,500/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
Mr.
Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in quantifying the award at Rs. 2,04,500/- . 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, Mr. Mehta 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. 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 minor 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 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."
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 minor-deceased, the age of the parents is required to be considered. Accordingly, considering the notional annual income of Rs. 15000/- per annum and the age of the father, the datum figure as per the Second Schedule comes to Rs. 2,42,000/-. Deducting 1/3 from the total income for personal expenses, the amount of dependency loss per annum shall come to Rs. 1,62,000/- (Rs. 2,30,000- Rs. 80,000). 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. 1,66,500/- by way of compensation whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,04,500/-. Therefore amount of Rs. 38,000/- is awarded in excess to the original claimants.
5. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled to only Rs. 38,000/- by way of total compensation. The balance amount 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.) Divya// Top