1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Dhrangadhra in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.735 of 1998, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,18,500/- to original claimant with running interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the application till its realization.
2. This claim petition arise out of the vehicular accident, which occurred on 21.03.1998. On that day the deceased Thakarshibhai was going as pillion rider on scooter and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck No.GRX- 3659, the truck dashed with the scooter. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the original claimants filed claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation.
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 herein above, against which present appeal is preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding 75% negligence of the driver of the truck. It has been also contended that the multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal is on higher side.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
6. So far as the issue of negligence is concerned, the Tribunal, relying upon the FIR and Panchanama, rightly held original opponent No.1 75% liable and the driver of the scooter 25% liable for the accident. The Tribunal has discussed this aspect in Paragraph Nos.6 to 8 of the judgment and in my view the Tribunal was completely justified in assessing the negligence of both the drivers.
7. So far as the issue of quantum is concerned, the Tribunal, rightly assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/-, but, the Tribunal has erred in calculating prospective income at Rs.54,000/-. Considering the ratio laid down by Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009(6) SCC 121, a rise of 30% in income should be given for calculating prospective income as the deceased was aged about 48 years. Thus, the annual prospective income comes to Rs.46,800/-. Considering the fact that the wife and four sons are the applicants and also considering the ratio laid down in case of Sarla Verma's Case (Supra), 1/4 amount is required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Hence, annual dependency comes to Rs.35,100/-. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 48 years, the multiplier of 13 should have been adopted, applying ratio laid down in case of Sarla Verma's Case (Supra). Hence, total amount of dependency comes to Rs.4,56,300/-.
8. Further, original claimants are entitled for Rs.10,000/- for loss to estate, Rs.10,000/- for consortium and Rs.5,000/- for the funeral expenses. Hence, in all original claimants are entitled to Rs.4,81,300/- [Rs.4,56,300/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5,000/-]. As the driver of the scooter is held 25% liable for the accident and the driver of the scooter was not joined as respondent, the original applicants are entitled for Rs.3,60,975/- as compensation. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.4,18,500/-, therefore, the balance amount of Rs.57,525/-, rounded up to Rs.57,500/- is required to be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company.
9. In the premises, the amount of Rs.57,500/- is ordered to be paid back along with the interest, cost, if any to the appellant-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, cost, if any. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
..mitesh..
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.]