1. The appellants herein haves challenged the award dated 06.01.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 230 of 1995 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 3,39,236/- as compensation with interest and costs.
2. It is the case of the appellants that on 09.12.1994 while Shri Mangaldas Kachralal was travelling in a Maruti Car bearing registration No. GCB 3549 which was hit by a truck bearing registration no. RPJ 4257. Shri Mangaldas passed away in the said accident. The appellants therefore filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 7 lakhs. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Mr. Sandip Shah, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal erred in considering the prospective income of the deceased as Rs. 4225/-. He submitted that having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121, the Tribunal ought to have taken prospective income into account by adding 30% to the income assessed. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses. He submitted that the multiplier adopted is also on lower side.
4. Learned advocates appearing for both the insurance companies supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that no interference is called for as even otherwise the Tribunal has awarded amount which on higher side.
5. Before proceeding further it is required to be noted that the issues with regard to income and deduction by way of personal expenses are already settled by the decisions of Apex Court. In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 it is held as under:
“In Susamma Thomas this Court increased the income by nearly 100%. In Sarla Dixit the income was increased only by 50% and in Abat Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of the imponderables and uncertainties,w e are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the decased towards future prospects, whee the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words “actual salary” should be read as “actual salary less tax”). The addition should be only 30% if the age fo the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Thouugh the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Wehr e the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.) the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.
Where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family numbers is 2 to 3, one- fourth (1/4th), where the number of Dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of Dependant family members exceed six.
Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because ti is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parents/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a Dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be Dependant on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a Dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and Dependant on the income of the deceased, as in the case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non- earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.
The multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M- 17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M- 13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M- 9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”
6. Thus considering the formula laid down in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) the income of the deceased is to be calculated. In the present case the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3450/-. Nothing is pointed out to take a different figure in that regard. The said income should be added with 30% of Rs. 3450/- which comes to Rs. 4485/- which is rounded off to Rs. 4500/-.
6.1 In the present case the considering the number of claimants as 6, 1/4th ought to have been deducted as personal expenses. Accordingly, the loss of income per month shall come to Rs. 3375/- and Rs. 40,500/-. As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), I am of the view that, looking to the age of the claimant, the multiplier of 9 awarded in the present case is on lower side. The just and proper multiplier would be 14. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs.5,67,000 (Rs.40500 x 14). As against this the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,04,236/-. Therefore the claimants shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 2,62,764/-.
7. As regards the rest of the awards under various heads are just and proper and no interference is required.
8. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 2,62,764/- alongwith interest at 7.5% from the date of application till realisation. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//