1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 23.02.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Mehsana ( for short “the Tribunal”) in Motor Accident claim Petition No. 215 of 1988 whereby claim petition preferred by the claimants came to be partly allowed by the Tribunal and awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,66,000/ along with interest @ 15% from the date of application till its realization.
2.0 One Hajimiya Sirajmiya was going from Ahmedabad to Nandasan by driving scooter No. G. R. F. 932 on 07.02.1987. When he reached near village Amedpur and was trying to overtake a matador travelling in front of him, Jeep bearing registration No. G. A. Q. 5969 collided with the scooter causing fatal injuries to Hajimiya. The legal heirs of the deceased therefore, preferred the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal wherein the aforesaid award came to be passed which is challenged in the present appeal.
3.0 Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that learned Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to the involvement of jeep No. G. A. Q. 5969; that the accident was caused due to the larger negligence of the deceased; that the accident was caused due to contributory negligence of the deceased as well as the jeep driver wherein the deceased was the larger contributory; that the amount awarded under the loss of income and towards other heads are on higher side and awarded interest of 15% is on higher side.
4.0 Learned advocate appearing for the respondents supported the judgement and award of the learned Tribunal and submitted that the appeal may be dismissed,
5.0 Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents on record. One Imtiyaj Mayuddin who was travelling as pillion rider on the scooter involved in the accident was examined at Exh, 24. He is the eyewitness. From this evidence, it is clear that in fact the jeepcar had dashed with the scooter of the deceased. This evidence is also supported by the complaint and panchnama of the place of occurrence. Thus the learned Tribunal has rightly held the negligence of jeepcar.
6.0 As regards the income of the deceased is concerned, he was earning Rs .130840 ps. The Tribunal had taken at Rs. 1300/ per month. The deceased was serving as postman and therefore, the transport charges were given at Rs 500/. Hence, Rs. 800/ would be monthly loss of income i.e. Rs. 9600/ would be yearly loss of income . The deceased was 35 years old. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 15 years which is just and proper and the amount comes to Rs .1, 44, 000/ ( Rs 9600/ x 15). Thus the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1, 44, 000/ for future loss of income. In my view, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal towards the loss of future income is just and proper.
7.0 The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2000/ awarded for medical treatment, transport and pain, shock and suffering. Rs. 20,000/ was awarded for loss to the expectation of life. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1, 66, 000/ which in my opinion is just and proper.
8.0 Further, looking to the trend of interest the award of interest at the rate of 15% is on higher side. At the most it could be 12%. Therefore I decide accordingly. Thus, the original claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 1, 66, 000/ along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. The excess amount of interest which has been deposited by the Insurance Company will be refunded to the Company.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*