By way of filing these appeals, the appellants - original claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellants - original claimants have challenged the judgments and awards passed by the learned MAC Tribunal (Main), at Navsari in MAC Petition No.259 of 1987 to 264 of 1987 dated 20th July 1994 vide which the Tribunal has partially allowed the claim petitions filed by the claimants.
2 As all the appeals involve same questions of law and facts, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. A cognate matter being First Appeal No.6463 of 1995 was not listed along with this group of appeals. Therefore, with the consent of the parties the same was called for from the Registry and is being disposed of along with other connected appeals.
3 The facts leading to filing the present appeals are to the effect that on the date of the incident viz. on 6th December 1986 claimant - minor Kena Pankaj Patel and her parents, brother and grandparents left for Ambaji from Mumbai in Ambassador Car bearing No.MMB 2223. It is the case of the claimant that her father - Pankaj Patel was driving the Ambassador car at moderate speed and when their car reached near finger post of village Balitha, a truck bearing No.MTT 6661 came from the opposite direction with excessive speed and rashly and dashed with the ill-fated car due to which the car was smashed. In the said accident all the passengers except the present claimant received fatal injuries. The claimant, therefore, filed the following Claim Petitions:-
Sr No MAC Petition First Appeal Claim in respect of Amount awarded 01 259 of 1987 6463 of 1995 Self injuries Rs.23,887.50 02 261 of 1987 6464 of 1995 Mother Rs.70,000 03 262 of 1987 6465 of 1995 Brother Rs.28,000 04 263 of 1987 6461 of 1995 Grandmother Rs.28,000 05 264 of 1987 6466 of 1995 Grandfather Rs.28,000 4 The Tribunal considering the documentary as well as oral evidence produced on record awarded the amounts as indicated hereinabove. Hence, the present appeals are filed by the claimant against the same praying for enhancement.
5 Claim Petition No.259 of 1987 (out of which First Appeal No.6463 of 1995 arises) has been filed by the claimant claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by her. The claimant has filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.1 lac. The Tribunal awarded Rs.23,887.50 along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum.
5.1 Claim Petition No.261 of 1987 (out of which First Appeal No.6464 of 1995 arises) has been filed by the claimant claiming compensation for the death of her mother. The claimant has filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.75,000. The Tribunal awarded Rs.70,000 along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum.
5.2 Claim Petition No.262 of 1987 (out of which First Appeal No.6465 of 1995 arises) has been filed by the claimant claiming compensation for the death of her brother - Pavan. The claimant has filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.30,000. The Tribunal awarded Rs.28,000 along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum.
5.3 Claim Petition No.263 of 1987 (out of which First Appeal No.6461 of 1995 arises) has been filed by the claimant claiming compensation for the death of her grandmother. The claimant has filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,000. The Tribunal has computed the services rendered by him at the rate of Rs.1000 per month and Rs.12,000 per annum and by applying the multiplier of 4 awarded Rs.28,000 along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum.
5.4 Claim Petition No.264 of 1987 (out of which First Appeal No.6466 of 1995 arises) has been filed by the claimant claiming compensation for the death of her grandfather. The claimant has filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.75,000. The Tribunal awarded Rs.28,000 along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the aspect of future economic prospects and the multiplier adopted is on lower side.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment and award and stated that the judgment and award is just and no interference is called for.
9. On the point of contributory negligence the Tribunal has discussed evidence in paragraphs 39 to 46 of the judgment and held both the Drivers to be negligent to the extent of 50% each for the occurrence of the accident.
10. As far as Claim Petition No.264 of 1987 is concerned concerning death of grandfather, the multiplier of 3 applied by the Tribunal is on lower side. The Tribunal has considered the loss of dependency at Rs.12,000 per annum and awarded Rs.36,000 under that head. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.20,000 as conventional amount. Thus, in all a sum of Rs.56,000 was awarded as against the claim of Rs.75,000 out of which 50% was deducted towards contributory negligence on the part of the Driver of the car and awarded Rs.28,000/-.
The Tribunal ought to have awarded the multiplier of 5 instead of 3 and therefore the loss of dependency would come to Rs.60,000/-. To this, Rs.20,000 is required to be added conventional amount. Then, the amount of compensation would come to Rs.80,000 out of which 50% to be deducted towards contributory negligence and thus the claimants are entitled to get Rs.40,000, an addition of Rs.12,000 over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realisation.
11. As far as Claim Petition No.263 of 1987 is concerned concerning death of grandmother, the multiplier of 3 applied by the Tribunal is on lower side. The Tribunal has considered the loss of dependency at Rs.12,000 per annum and awarded Rs.36,000 under that head. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.20,000 as conventional amount. Thus, in all a sum of Rs.56,000 was awarded as against the claim of Rs.75,000 out of which 50% was deducted towards contributory negligence on the part of the Driver of the car and awarded Rs.28,000/-.
The Tribunal ought to have awarded the multiplier of 5 instead of 3 and therefore the loss of dependency would come to Rs.60,000/-. To this, Rs.20,000 is required to be added conventional amount. Then, the amount of compensation would come to Rs.80,000 out of which 50% to be deducted towards contributory negligence and thus the claimants are entitled to get Rs.40,000, an addition of Rs.12,000 over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realisation.
12. As far as Claim Petition No.262 of 1987 is concerned concerning death of brother of the claimant, the multiplier of 3 applied by the Tribunal is on lower side. The Tribunal has considered the loss of dependency at Rs.12,000 per annum and awarded Rs.36,000 under that head. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.20,000 as conventional amount. Thus, in all a sum of Rs.56,000 was awarded as against the claim of Rs.75,000 out of which 50% was deducted towards contributory negligence on the part of the Driver of the car and awarded Rs.28,000/-.
The Tribunal ought to have awarded the multiplier of 5 instead of 3 and therefore the loss of dependency would come to Rs.60,000/-. To this, Rs.20,000 is required to be added conventional amount. Then, the amount of compensation would come to Rs.80,000 out of which 50% to be deducted towards contributory negligence and thus the claimants are entitled to get Rs.40,000, an addition of Rs.12,000 over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal. However, as the claim is restricted to Rs.30,000/- the claimant is entitled to additional amount of Rs.2,000 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of application till realisation.
13. As far as Claim Petition No.261 of 1987 is concerned concerning death of mother of the claimant, the Tribunal has considered the loss of dependency at Rs.12,000 per annum and by applying the multiplier of 10 awarded Rs.120,000 under that head. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.20,000 as conventional amount. Thus, in all a sum of Rs.140,000 was awarded out of which 50% was deducted towards contributory negligence on the part of the Driver of the car and awarded Rs.70,000/-.
The Tribunal ought to have awarded the multiplier of 11 instead of 10 and therefore the loss of dependency would come to Rs.130,000/-. To this, Rs.20,000 is required to be added conventional amount. Then, the amount of compensation would come to Rs.150,000 out of which 50% to be deducted towards contributory negligence and thus the claimants are entitled to get Rs.75,000, an addition of Rs.5,000 over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realisation.
14. As far as Claim Petition No.259 of 1987 is concerned, the same is filed by the claimant for compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the accident. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000 under the head of pain, shock and suffering, Rs.19,909 under the head of medical expenses, Rs.8940 under the head of Nursing and Care, Rs.900 towards conveyance charges, Rs.1500 towards special diet and Rs.2325 towards damage to the car. Thus, in all, Rs.47,755 was assessed out of which 50% was deducted towards contributory negligence and awarded Rs.23,877.50. However, in my view, an additional amount of Rs.10,000 is required to be awarded under the head of Pain, Shock and Suffering. Therefore, she is entitled to get Rs.25,000 under the head of Pain, Shock and Suffering. Thus, the claimant is entitled to additional amount of compensation of Rs.5,000/- in First Appeal No.6463 of 1995 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realisation.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the claimants are entitled to the following additional amount of compensation:
Sr No First Appeal Amount awarded by Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court Additional Amount awarded 01 6463 of 1995 Rs.23,887.50 Rs.28,887.50 Rs.5,000 02 6464 of 1995 Rs.70,000 Rs.75,000 Rs.5,000 03 6465 of 1995 Rs.28,000 Rs.30,000 Rs.2,000 04 6461 of 1995 Rs.28,000 Rs.40,000 Rs.12,000 05 6466 of 1995 Rs.28,000 Rs.40,000 Rs.12,000
15. In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Judgments and awards passed by the Tribunal are modified to the extent indicated hereinabove.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd Top