1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award of the M.A.C.T., Bhavnagar, dated 04.06.1994, rendered in M.A.C.P. No.52 of 1993, whereby the tribunal awarded Rs.3,20,000/- along with 12 per cent interest.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that on account of a vehicular accident which took place on 22.09.1992, the deceased-Mayur, son of present respondent Nos.
1 and 2 and brother of respondent No.3, herein, lost his life. They, hence, being the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, preferred the aforesaid claim petition, wherein the tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellants has raised various contentions. He submitted that the tribunal erred in passing the impugned judgment and award. The tribunal failed to appreciate the
tribunal ought to held that the main claimants being the parents, they shall be entitled to only 1/2 of the income of the deceased. He has, therefore, prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondents have opposed the appeal and have prayed to dismiss the same, as being without merit.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. To prove the factum of accident, the respondents placed reliance on FIR(Exhibit-19), Panchnama(Exhibit-20) as well as the oral evidence of eye-witness, Ramchandra(Exhibit-26)etc., which support the case of the respondents-original claimants. The appellants failed to bring anything on record to controvert the case put forward by the respondents. The tribunal, hence, rightly held that the respondents are entitled to claim compensation.
7. Insofar as the aspect of quantum of compensation is concerned, according to the respondents, the deceased, at the time of his death, was aged about 23 years and was earning Rs.2400/- to Rs.2500/- per month by way of giving tuitions. In support of their say, the respondents have examined one Nainaben Nalinbhai(Exhibit-24), who, in her deposition, stated that the deceased was giving tuition to her two sons and she used to pay Rs.700/- to him towards the tuition fees. One Jayendra Ratilal(Exhibit-25) also supported the case of the respondents. Taking into consideration these evidence, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2000/- and after deducting Rs.400/- towards personal expenses of the deceased and after applying the multiplier of 15, awarded Rs.2,88,000/- towards compensation. However, while doing so the tribunal seems to have overlooked the fact that the claimants are the parents of the deceased, and therefore, they would be entitled to only 1/2 income of the deceased, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex tribunal also appears to be on higher side, in view of the above cited decision. Thus, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant with regard to quantum of compensation requires to be accepted.
8. It is an admitted position that the respondents did not produce any documentary evidence to support their claim that the deceased was earning Rs.2400/- p.m.. However, in view of the fact that the deceased was giving tuitions, it can reasonably be said that he must be earning around Rs.2000/- per month. Hence, applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in “SMT. SARLA DIXIT & ANR. VS. BALVANT YADAV & ORS.”, reported in 1996(3) SCC 179, wherein the tribunal has laid down the method of calculating the income, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.[(2000 X 2)=4000, (4000 + 2000)=6000, (6000/2)=3000/-].
As stated above, since, the claimants are the parents, they shall be entitled to only ½ of the income of the deceased i.e.(3000/2)=Rs.1500/-.
9. As regards the aspect of multiplier is concerned, looking to the age of the parents, they shall be entitled to a multiplier of 8, as laid down by the Apex Court in “SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR.”(Supra).
Hence, the amount towards annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.(1500 X 12)=18000/- and future loss of dependency would come to Rs.(18000 X 8)=1,44,000/-.
10. The tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards expectation of life, Rs.10,000/- for conventional amount and Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses, which, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case appears to be just and proper.
11. Under the circumstances, the respondents- original claimants shall be entitled to an amount of Rs.(144000 + 32000)= 176000/- towards compensation.
with interest, as awarded by the tribunal. The appellant No.2-Insurance Company be REFUNDED the balance amount along with costs, interest, if any. The judgment and award impugned in this appeal stands MODIFIED to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI,J.) Umesh/