1. By way of this appeal, the present appellants-original claimants have challenged the judgement and award dated 17.08.2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surendranagar, in M.A.C.P. No.650 of 1995, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.2,45,550/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 7.8.1995, one Kantibhai Tribhovanbhai and other persons were travelling in a Matador bearing registration No.GJ-2-U-2551. At that time one truck bearing registration No.GJ-7-T-9845 came and dashed the said Matador. As a result of the said accident, Kantibhai Tribhovanbhai sustained injuries and due to which he died. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.650 of 1995, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, for compensation. The learned tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellants-original claimants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the tribunal has committed an error in deducting 1/3 amount from the income of the deceased. The Tribunal ought to have deducted ¼ amount from the income of the deceased as the claimants are six in number. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 17 instead of 15. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court, in the case of Sarla Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2009(6) SCC, 121.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material on record. There is no dispute about the monthly income of the deceased, which is at Rs.1800/- per month. I find that the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 1/3 amount from the income of the deceased. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and Others(supra), the tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4 amount, as the claimants are six in number. After deducting ¼ amount from the income of the deceased, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.1350/-, and accordingly annually it comes to Rs.16,200/-. Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier of 17, instead of 15, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and Others(supra). If multiplier of 17 is adopted, the dependency come to Rs. 2,75,400/-.
5. I also find that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation under the different heads. Therefore, I am of the view that if am amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of consortium, and additional amount of Rs. 2,000/- under the head of funeral expenses are granted, the same would met ends of justice. Over and above, the appellants are also entitled to Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of expectation of life, Rs.3000/- under the head of funeral expenses, Rs.10,550/- under the head of medical expenses and Rs.6000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering.
6. Thus, in all the appellants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,16,950/-, whereas the Tribunal has only awarded Rs.2,45,550/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.71,400/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7 ½ per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till realization.
7. The judgement and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The decree be drawn accordingly. present appeal is partly allowed.
[K.S.JHAVERI,J.] pawan Top