1. By way of this appeal, the present appellants have challenged the judgment and award dated 29.01.2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Auxiliary), Bharuch, in MACP No.31 of 2005, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.7,32,500/- to the claimant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 01.12.2004, the deceased was going by driving his motorcycle No.GJ-16-H-5302 and at that time, one truck No.GJ-5-V-3062, driven by original opponent No.1 came suddenly in full speed and dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result thereof, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. Therefore, the claimants filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No. 31 of 2005, before the Tribunal for compensation.
3. The Tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after perusing the record decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeal is preferred.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has erred in adopting the multiplier of 15. He has further contended that the Tribunal has also erred in assessing monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-.
5. So far as the issue of negligence is concerned, the Tribunal, relying upon the FIR at Exh.47, Panchanama at Exh.33 and oral evidence of witness Rajubhai Pawar at Exh.24 rightly held the original opponent No.1 solely negligent for the accident.
6. I have heard learned advocate for the appellant and perused the materials produced on record. Learned advocate for the appellant has mainly contended the quantum of the award. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6000/-. In my view the Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- as specific evidence was produced in the deposition of witness Somabhai Lallubhai at Exh.48 before the Tribunal that the deceased was working as a tractor driver and his monthly income was Rs.2,000/-. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs.2,000/- and 1/3 amount (Rs.666/-) is required to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased. Original applicants are entitled for Rs.1334/- as monthly dependency and accordingly Rs.16,008/- as annual dependency. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 15, but, as the deceased was aged about 43 years, the Tribunal ought to have considered 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, and should have adopted the multiplier of 14. Hence, the total amount of dependency comes to Rs.2,24,112/-.
7. From the record, it appears that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,500/- towards loss to estate, Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- for consortium and Rs.3,000/- under the head of transportation allowance. In my view the original applicants are entitled for Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss to estate, Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- under the head of expenditure for obsequious ceremony. In all, original applicants is entitled to the sum of Rs.2,49,112/-. As the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.7,32,500/-, the balance amount of Rs.4,83,388/- is required to be paid back to the appellant.
8. In view of the above, the appeal is party allowed. The impugned passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that a total amount of Rs.4,83,388/- is ordered to be reduced from the total compensation awarded to the claimants and accordingly the claimants are only entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,49,112/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realization and proportionate cost. The excess amount of Rs.4,83,388/- shall be refunded to the appellants along with interest at the rate 9% per annum. The decree be drawn accordingly.
..mitesh..
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.]