1. By way of this appeal, the appellant- Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and award dated 06.11.2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary.I), Ahmedabad (Rural) in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.739 of 1996, whereby the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.5,03,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the amount is deposited in the Tribunal with proportionate costs to the petitioner.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal is that on 11.03.1996 the deceased has crossed the half road situated opposite the Swaminarayan Temple, Jetalpur and he was standing near divider at that time the opponent No.1 came from Ahmedabad by driving his car No.GJ.16.C.3773 in full spped and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the deceased, due to which deceased was knocked down on divider and because of the accident deceased died. Therefore, the original applicants filed their claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.1), Ahmedabad (Rural).
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 hereinabove, against which present appeal is preferred.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- and assessing prospective income at Rs.3,750/-. He has further contended that the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 16 which is on higher side.
5. So far as the issue of negligence is concerned, learned advocate for the appellant has not seriously argued on this aspect. The Tribunal, in my view after relying on FIR and Panchnama rightly hold original plaintiff No.1 solely liable for the accident.
6. The Tribunal has dealt with quantum aspect in Paragraph Nos.14 to 15 of the judgment. The Tribunal, relying upon the documentary evidence rightly considered monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- and rightly considered prospective income at Rs.3,500/-. As the deceased was aged about 22 years and remained unmarried, ½ amount should be considered for dependency, therefore, monthly dependency can be assessed at Rs.1,875/- and accordingly annual dependency would be Rs.22,500/-. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier 16, which in my view is on higher side, the multiplier of 13 should be adopted. Therefore, future dependency would come at Rs.2,92,500/-.
7. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for loss of expectation of life, Rs.10,000/- for love and affection and Rs.3,000/- for funeral expenses. In my view Rs.10,000/- for loss to estate and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses should be awarded.
8. Thus, in all the appellants are entitled for Rs.3,07,500/- [Rs.2,92,500/-(dependency) + Rs.10,000/- (loss to estate)+ Rs.5,000/- (Funeral expenses)].
9. In the premises, the excess amount of Rs.1,95,500/- will be paid back with interest at the rate of 9% to the Insurance Company. It is, however, observed that if the amount deposited before the Tribunal is already withdrawn by the original claimants, the same shall not be recovered from the original claimants and the Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. But, if the amount has not been withdrawn by the original claimants, the same shall be refunded with interest at the rate of 9% to the Insurance Company. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J) mehul