1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Auxi), Vadodara in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.1208 of 2001, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,80,000/- to original claimant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the application till its realization and proportionate cost.
2. The facts of the case is that on 19.06.2001, the deceased was going in the truck No.GJ-6-T-281, which was driven by original opponent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, the said truck dashed with the tanker No.MP-09-KB-4102 from behind, which was parked in the side. As a result thereof, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. Therefore, the original claimant filed claim petition being Motor Accident Claims Petition No.1208 of 2001 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Auxi), Vadodara for compensation.
3. The Tribunal, after hearing learned advocate for the parties and after considering the evidence produced on record, decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated herein above, against which present appeal is preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has erred in considering the prospective income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- and the Tribunal ought to have assessed the monthly income at Rs.5,000/-. He has further contended that the Tribunal ought to have deducted ¼ amount instead of 1/3 amount, considering the fact that the claimants are wife, two children and mother of the deceased.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and stated that no interference is called for and present appeal should be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. So far as the issue of negligence is concerned, the Tribunal, after considering the FIR at Exh.26 and oral evidence of Dashrathbhai, who was an eye-witness to the accident, rightly held that the accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of original opponent No.1.
8. So far as the issue of quantum is concerned, the owner of Mahakali Transport Dashrathbhai Ambalal was examined before the Tribunal and he has deposed that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/-. However, in absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal has assessed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- and assessed prospective income at Rs.3,000/-. The Tribunal was justified in assessing the prospective income, but, erred in deducting 1/3 amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal ought to have considered the ratio laid down by Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009(6) SCC 121, ¼ amount should have been deducted. Hence, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.2,250/- and accordingly, annual dependency comes to Rs.27,000/-. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 15, which in my view, is just and proper. Hence, total amount of dependency comes to Rs.4,05,000/-.
9. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for the loss of expectation of life. In my view, the appellants- original claimants are entitled for Rs.10,000/- for loss to estate, Rs.10,000/- for consortium and Rs.5,000/- for the funeral expenses. Hence, in all original claimants are entitled to Rs.4,30,000/- [Rs.4,05,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/-
+ Rs.5,000/-]. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.3,80,000/-, therefore, the additional amount of Rs.50,000/- is required to be paid to the appellant-original claimants.
10. In that view of the matter, the appellant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of application till realization. Rest of the award stands unaltered.
11. The appeal is partly allowed. Decree be drawn accordingly.
..mitesh..
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.]