1. By way of this appeal, the present appellant-original opponent No.2 has challenged the judgement and award dated 01.01.2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Modasa, in M.A.C.P. No. 96 of 1993, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.2,69,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 24.12.1992, while Bhuraji Punamji was returning from Ubhran. At that time, one tempo bearing registration No. GJ-9-5525, came and dashed him. As a result of the said, accident, he sustained grievous injuries and due to which he died. Therefore, the legal heirs of deceased filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No. 96 of 1993 before the Tribunal for compensation. The learned tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petitions and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant-original opponent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. He further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4 amount from the notional income of the deceased instead of 1/3. The Tribunal has also committed an error in adopting multiplier of 17. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in 2009(6) SCC, 121. Therefore, he prayed to allow this appeal.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record as well as the judgement and award of the tribunal. I find that the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 1/3 amount from the notional income of the deceased, which is at Rs.15,000/- per annum. It is not in dispute that the claim petition was filed by six claimants. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation(supra), wherein it has been held that in case the claimants are 4-6 in number ¼ amount is required to be deducted from the notional income of the deceased. Here, in this case, the original claimants are six in number. Therefore, the Tribunal 0ught to have deducted ¼ amount from the notional income of the deceased. If we deduct the ¼ amount from the annual notional income of the deceased, the annually dependency comes to Rs.11250/-. I also find that the multiplier of 17 adopted by the Tribunal is on higher side. As per Sarla Varma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation(Supra) the multiplier of 16 is just and proper. If multiplier of 16 is considered, the dependency comes to Rs. 1,80,000,/- .
5. I also find that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation under different heads. Therefore, the compensation awarded under different heads is required to be modified. I am of the opinion that If Rs.10,000/-under the head of loss of estate instead of Rs.5000/-, Rs.5,000/- under the head of funeral expenses instead of Rs.2000/-, Rs.5,000/- under the head of loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- under the head of transportation instead of Rs. 2,000/- are granted, the same would met ends of justices.
6. In that view of the matter the the claimants are only entitled to Rs.2,05,000/- for compensation, whereas the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,69,000/- Therefore, the excess amount of Rs.
64,000/- will be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company with interest and cost, if any, if the same is deposited by the appellant with the tribunal.
7. The judgement and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The decree be drawn accordingly. present appeal is partly allowed.
pawan
[K.S.JHAVERI,J.]