1. In respect of the vehicular accident that took place on 30.10.1991 involving a Tanker bearing registration No. GTF 2257 and in which Haresh @ Hitesh Jamnadas expired, the legal heirs of deceased preferred claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.959/1991 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Junagadh claiming total compensation of Rs.3.40 Lacs. The said claim petition came to be allowed in part, by judgment and award dated 21.10.2000, whereby, the claimants, appellants herein, were awarded compensation of Rs.1,02,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs.
2. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimants have preferred the present appeal for enhancement. The main grounds under which the appellants have prayed for enhancement is that the Tribunal ought to have deducted ½ instead of 1/3rd while calculating dependency benefit in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of estate and has awarded Rs.2,000/- only towards funeral expenses. It is, therefore, prayed that compensation may be enhanced accordingly.
3. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent no.1. On behalf of respondent no.2-Insurance Company, it is submitted that the multiplier adopted is on the higher side since the age of the mother is to be looked into in view of the decision rendered in Sarla Verma's case (supra). It is submitted that the amount awarded under the other heads are just and appropriate and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It appears from the record that before the Tribunal the claimants had not produced any documentary evidence to prove the income of deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal assessed the notional monthly income at Rs.1,500/-, which, in my opinion, is just, legal and appropriate. However, I find that while calculating amount under the head of dependency benefit, the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal living expenses as against ½, in view of the decision rendered in Sarla Verma's case (supra). Thus, if we deduct ½ amount towards personal living expenses of the deceased, then the monthly dependency benefit would come to Rs.750 and annual dependency at Rs.9,000/-. So far as the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is concerned, the same is contrary to the decision rendered in Sarla Verma's case (supra) wherein, it has been provided that the age of mother at the time of accident is to be looked into for ascertaining the multiplier. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the age of the mother of deceased was 42 and therefore, the appropriate multiplier would be 14. Thus, by adopting the multiplier of 14, the total amount under the head of dependency benefit would come to Rs.1,26,000/-. However, the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.90,000/- under the said head and hence, the claimants shall be entitled for additional amount of Rs.36,000/- under the head of dependency benefit. The claimants shall also be entitled for another Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of estate and additional Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimants shall be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.49,000/- with interest.
5. In view of the above discussion, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants, original claimants, shall be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.49,000/-
[Rupees Forty nine thousand only] along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top