1. By way of this appeal, the present appellant has challenged the judgement and award dated 21.12.2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Auxi.), Dahod, in M.A.C.P. No.1975 of 2004 (Old M.A.C.P. No.1851/97), whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.1,91,000/- 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 05.08.1997 at about 15.00 hrs, the deceased Ajmalbhai Koli was traveling in the Tempo bearing registration No. M.P. 13E 0575 along with goods. The opponent No.1 was driving the said vehicle in rash and negligently and when it reached near the place of accident, the opponent, the opponent no.1 was driving the said vehicle and the said vehicle turned turtle. Therefore, the legal heirs of deceased. As a result of this accident Ajmalbhai sustained grievous injuries and due to which he filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.1975 of 2004, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Auxi), Dahod, for compensation.
2.1. The learned tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petitions and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeal is preferred.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in deducting 1/3 amount form the income of the deceased. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/5 amount from the income of the deceased since the claimants are more than six persons. He further contended that the multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal is on lower side. The Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier of 16. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and others. v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121,and prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. Learned Advocate for the respondents has submitted that the tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation and the award is just and proper and looking to the assessment made by the tribunal no interference is called for by this Court.
5. I have heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and perused the record as well as the judgment and award of the tribunal. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is required to be accepted as the claimants are more than five persons, therefore, as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma (Supra), the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/5 amount from the income of the deceased instead of 1/3. Therefore, in view of decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma (Supra) 1/5 amount is required to be deducted from the income of the deceased. Accordingly, after deducting 1/5 amount from the income of the deceased, amount comes to Rs.1,200/- per month and accordingly annual income comes to Rs.14,400/-. The multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal is also on lower side in view of the decision of Sarla Varma (Supra) it should be 16. Therefore, if we apply the multiplier of 16 the dependency comes to Rs.2,30,400/-.
6. Further, the claimants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.12,000/- under the head loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- under the head of loss to the estate and Rs.5,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs.2,30,400 + 12,000 + 5,000 + 5,000 = ,2,52,400/-, whereas the tribunal has awarded Rs.1,91,000/- Therefore, the claimants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.61,400/-. In view of the matter, as claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 61,400/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
7. The judgment and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The decree be drawn accordingly. present appeal is partly allowed.
mehul
(K.S.JHAVERI,J.)