1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 15.07.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P. No.95/1995 whereby, the claim petition was partly allowed and the respondents, original claimants, were awarded total compensation of Rs.2.98 Lacs along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 26.10.1993 till its realization with proportionate costs.
2. The aforesaid claim petition came to be filed in connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 13.10.1993 at about 1600 hrs. near Ashram Road, Ahmedabad involving a Scooter bearing registration No. PAH 4491 and an ST bus bearing registration No. GJ-1-Z-3034 belonging to the appellant-Corporation. In the said accident, the Scooterist, Digvijaysinh, son of respondents no.1 & 2 herein and brother of respondents no.3 & 4 herein, sustained severed bodily injuries and died on the spot.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been mainly contended on behalf of the appellant- Corporation that though no evidence was produced on record to prove income of the deceased, the Tribunal erred in assessing the prospective monthly income at Rs.3,000/-. It has been further contended that the multiplier of 16 adopted by the Tribunal is also on the higher side since the same is contrary to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121. It is, therefore, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be reduced.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned award and submitted that the compensation awarded is just and appropriate and hence, this Court may not entertain the present appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The Tribunal assessed the prospective monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- on the basis that at the time of accident, the deceased was a student of the last year of Diploma Course. Considering the facts of the case, the assessment of prospective income made by the Tribunal appears to be just and legal. However, while computing the dependency benefit, I find that the multiplier adopted is not in consonance with the principle rendered in Sarla Verma's case (supra) wherein, the multiplier of 14 has been provided. If we adopt the multiplier of 14, the total dependency benefit would come to Rs.2,52,000/- [1500 x 12 x 14]. Hence, the claimants shall be entitled for Rs.2.52,000/- under the head of loss of dependency benefit. The claimants shall be entitled for Rs.5,000/- under the head of funeral expenses apart from Rs.10,000/-
awarded under the head of loss of expectation of life. Thus, in all, the claimants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs. 2,67,000/- as against Rs.2,98,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the excess amount of Rs.31,000/- is required to be refunded to the appellant-Corporation.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the respondents, original claimants, shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,67,000/- [Rupees Two lacs sixty seven thousand only], as against Rs.2,98,000/-, along with interest and cost, as awarded by the Tribunal. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The excess amount of Rs.31,000/- shall be refunded to the appellant-Corporation along with 12% interest. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*