1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 25th June 2001 passed by learned Motor accident Claim Tribunal (Main), Rajkot in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.933 of 1995 wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,31,000/ along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
2.0 On 29th September 1995 one Babubhai Bharwad along with others were traveling in a Chhakda rickshaw. The said rickshaw met with an accident in which said Babubhai sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same. The legal heirs of the said deceased filed the aforesaid claim petition wherein the aforesaid award came to be passed.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that both the drivers are negligent of 50% each; that the Tribunal ought to have held that the driver of the luxury bus was solely negligent for the accident; that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and that the income should have been taken at Rs.2500/ per month.
4.0 While considering the liability of the drivers the Tribunal has considered Panchnama and other relevant documents. The Tribunal also considered the possibilities of the accident and the manner in which the accident has taken place. In the present case even though one vehicle is Rickshaw, looking to the position or the vehicle and panchnama, it was found that both the drivers are equally responsible for the accident. Learned Advocate for the appellant is not in a position to point out from the record to take a different view of the matter.
5.0 As regards the income part is concerned, no evidence was produced to prove the income. In absence of income the Tribunal has taken notional income at Rs.1500/ and 2/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses. However, since the parents are claimants, 50% is required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses as per principles laid down in case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. By deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses, the monthly loss would come to Rs. 750/ and annual loss would come to Rs. 9000/. The Tribunal by considering the age of the deceased has applied multiplier of 16. However, since the parents are the claimants, age of the mother is required to be considered while applying the multiplier for future loss of income. Looking to the age of the mother, 11 multiplier is applied. By applying multiplier of 11, the future loss of income would come to Rs. 99000/ whereas the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 96000/ towards future loss of income. In that view of the no interference is required to be warranted. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/ towards pain, shock and suffering and Rs.5000/ towards after death ceremony which are just and proper.
6.0 I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the tribunal. No case is made out to cause interference. Hence the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*