1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 23.01.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( AuxiI.), Vadodara in M.A.C, Petition No. 308 of 1989 whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation in sum of Rs. 5, 46, 000/ together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization with proportionate cost.
2.0 According to the claimants, on 18.03.1988 Paharusingh was coming from west to east on bicycle at about 10. 55 a.m, on Refinery Main Road outside Refinery Gate. When he reached near Southern side of the stadium, the bus No. GJK 4965 came in a rash and negligent manner and in excessive speed and dashed with the cycle. As a result thereof,Paharusingh sustained serious injuries and he died on the spot. The legal heirs of the deceased therefore, preferred the aforesaid claim petition wherein the aforesaid award came to be passed which is challenged in the present appeal.
3.0 Learned advocate appearing for the appellantInsurance Company contended that at the time of the accident, the basic pay of the deceased was Rs. 1075/ and Rs. 5927/ in the year 1999. He contended that the accident is of the year 1988 and the evidence is of the year 1999. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121.
4.0 Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the evidence of Mirabhai Paharusinh Exh. 27 shows that her husband was serving in C.I.S.F as constable and at the time of accident he was serving in Gujarat Refinery as a Security Officer and he was earning Rs.1400/. Her evidence is supported by evidence of Avinash Bijaisinh Shanker who is serving in Central Industrial Security Force as Assistant the deceased was earning in his department as Head Constable.
5.0 Heard learned advocate for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. From the evidence on record it was found that the deceased was earning Rs. 1400/ per month. Thereafter applying the principle laid down in the case of Sarla Dixit (Smt.) and Another reported in (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 179, the income would come to Rs. 2100/ per month. There will be deduction of 1/4th for personal living and expenses. 1/4th of Rs. 2100/ would come to Rs.525/. Hence, the income is Rs. 1575/ per month and Rs. 18,900/ per year towards future loss of income and dependency. By applying multiplier of 15 in view of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, it would come to Rs. 2,83,500/ ( Rs. 18900/ x 15).
6.0 The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20000/ towards expectation of life, Rs. 20000/ towards consortium and Rs. 2000/ towards funeral expenses. The claimants are not entitled for Rs. 20000/ towards expectation of life. However, Rs. 2000/ awarded towards funeral expenses is on lower side and it should be Rs. 5000/. The amount of Rs. 20,000/ towards consortium is just and proper.
7.0 Thus, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 3, 08, 500/ ( Rs.
2, 83, 500/ towards future loss of income + Rs. 20,000/ toward loss of consortium + Rs. 5000/ towards funeral expenses). The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 5, 46,000/ for compensation.
8.0 In the premises the appeal is partly allowed. It is held that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 3, 08, 500/ along with interest @ 9% per annum. The judgement and award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. The balance of amount of Rs. 2, 37, 500/ shall be refunded to the Insurance Company. No order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*