1. This first appeal arises out of a judgment and award rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gandhidham-Kachchh, dated 02.06.2004, in M.A.C.P. No.1258 of 1999,.
2. Present appellants were the claimants before the tribunal, who had claimed a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of death of one Kana Teja Virada, caused in a vehicular accident, which took place on 28.12.1992. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as cleaner on a tanker bearing registration No. GQY 4877 and was earning Rs.2400/- per month. The claim of the claimants did not find any favourable consideration from the opponents and the opponents denied their liability. The accident took place when the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling colluded with a truck bearing registration No. GTW 8659. According to the claimants, accident occurred because of rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the tanker.
3. The case of the other side was that the drivers of both the vehicles should be held equally negligent.
4. At the time of accident, the age of the husband of the appellant No.1 was 25 years. After taking into consideration the evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.6000/- per month by way of salary and Bhattha, the tribunal observed that the monthly income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs.2400/- per month. The income of the deceased was taken at Rs.2400/- and after deducting expenditure on self, the loss of dependency was assessed at Rs.1500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. The tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 years and awarded Rs.2,70,000/- towards loss of dependency and conventional amount of Rs.20,000/-. In all, the tribunal awarded Rs.2,90,000/- towards compensation.
5. The tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1500/-, as against the documentary evidence of Rs.4500/-. Hence, the tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the income of the deceased with future prospects. The income of Rs.2400/- ought to have been doubled, which would come to Rs.4800/- and an addition of Rs.2400/- thereto would bring the amount to Rs.7200/- and on dividing the said amount with two, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.3600/-. From the said amount, after deducting 1/3 amount towards expenses of the deceased on self, the monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs.2400/- and the annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.28800/-.
Considering the age of the deceased and the age of the claimant No.1-Kankuben, who is aged about 23 years, a multiplier of 18 can be safely awarded. Thus, the amount under the head of loss of dependency would come to Rs.5,18,400/-. As against this, the tribunal has awarded Rs.2,70,000/- under the said head. The appellants shall, further, be entitled to an amount of Rs.20000/- as conventional amount. Thus, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs.5,38,400/-, as receivable by the claimants.
6. The appeal is, thus, PARTLY ALLOWED. The claimants-appellants are held to be entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,38,400/- along with interest at NINE per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition and proportionate costs. The interest would cease to accrue on the date of fulfillment of the award. No order as to costs.
Umesh/ (A.L.DAVE,J.)