1. The appellants-original claimants have challenged the award dated 01.04.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Mehsana in Motor Accident Claims Petitions No. 1218, 1219, 1292, 1293 & 1294 of 1991 in so far as the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 33,400/-, Rs. 12,000/-, Rs. 17,300/-, Rs. 12000/- & Rs. 13500/-
respectively with interests and costs.
2. The aforesaid claim petitions were filed by the injured claimants seeking compensation in respect of the vehicular accident which took place on 07.06.1991 near Mehsana river bridge while the claimants were travelling in a jeep bearing registration no. GRW 7079. The driver of the said jeep lost control over the jeep as a result of which the jeep turned turtle and the claimants sustained injuries. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Mr. Jay Thakkar, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Barot for the appellants submitted that as far as Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1218 of 1991 – First Appeal No. 1857 of 2004 is concerned, the Tribunal erred in not applying the correct multiplier. He has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 and submitted that the Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 15.
3.1 Mr. Thakkar, further submitted that as far as Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1219 & 1293 of 1991 – First Appeals No. 1858 & 1860 of 2004 are concerned, the Tribunal erred in not assessing the correct income of the claimants.
He submitted that the amount awarded is on lower side.
3.2 Mr. Thakkar also submitted that as far as Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1292 of 1991 – First Appeal No. 1859 of 2004 is concerned, the Tribunal has erred in not applying the correct multiplier. He has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 and submitted that the Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 11.
3.3 Mr. Thakkar also submitted that as far as Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1294 of 1991 – First Appeal No. 1861 of 2004 is concerned, the Tribunal has erred in not applying the correct multiplier. He has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 and submitted that the Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 9.
4. Mr. Nachiket Mehta, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Shalin Mehta for the respondent-Insurance Company has supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that no interference is called for.
5. Before proceeding further it is required to be noted that the issues with regard to multiplier is already settled by the decisions of Apex Court. In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 it is held as under:
“The multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M- 17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M- 13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M- 9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”
6. In the case of Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1218 of 1991 – First Appeal No. 1857 of 2004, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the average income of the claimant at Rs. 1000/- per month considering the prospective income. The disability is assessed at 11%. The claimant was 38 years old at the time of accident. Nothing is pointed out to take a different figure in that regard. Accordingly the loss per month shall come to Rs. 110/- and Rs. 1320/- per annum.
6.1 As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), I am of the view that, looking to the age of the claimant, the multiplier of 12 as applied by the Tribunal is on lower side. The just and proper multiplier would be 15. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs. 19,800/- (Rs. 1320 x 15). The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 15,840/- under the said head. Rest of the amounts are just and proper. Therefore the claimants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 3960/- under the head of future loss of income.
7. In the case of Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1292 of 1991 – First Appeal No. 1859 of 2004, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the average income of the claimant at Rs. 15,500/- per annum. The disability is assessed at 5%. The claimant was 55 years old at the time of accident. Nothing is pointed out to take a different figure in that regard. Accordingly the loss shall come to Rs. 775/- per annum.
7.1 As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), I am of the view that, looking to the age of the claimant, the multiplier of 5 applied by the Tribunal is on lower side. The just and proper multiplier would be 11. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs. 8525/- (Rs. 775 x 11). The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 3875/- under the said head. Rest of the amounts are just and proper. Therefore the claimants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 4650/- under the head of future loss of income.
8. In the case of Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1294 of 1991 – First Appeal No. 1861 of 2004, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the average income of the claimant at Rs. 600/- per month. The disability is assessed at 6%. The claimant was 65 years old at the time of accident. Nothing is pointed out to take a different figure in that regard. Accordingly the loss per month shall come to Rs. 36/- and Rs. 432/- per annum.
8.1 As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), I am of the view that, looking to the age of the claimant, the multiplier of 5 as applied by the Tribunal is on lower side. The just and proper multiplier would be 9. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs. 3,888/- (Rs. 432 x 9). The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 2160/-
under the said head. Rest of the amounts are just and proper. Therefore the claimants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 1728/- under the head of future loss of income.
9. As far as Motor Accident Claims Petition Nos. 1219 & 1293 of 1991 – First Appeals No. 1858 & 1860 of 2004 are concerned, the amount awarded by the Tribunal are just and proper and this Court does not see any room for enhancing the amount of compensation.
10. Accordingly, First Appeals No. 1857, 1859 & 1861 of 2004 are partly allowed. First Appeals No. 1858 & 1860 of 2004 are hereby dismissed. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly as under:
(i) The appellant of First Appeal No. 1857 of 2004 – Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1218 of 1991 shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 3,960/- alongwith interest at 7.5% from the date of application till realisation.
(ii) The appellant of First Appeal No. 1859 of 2004 – Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1292 of 1991 shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 4,650/- alongwith interest at 7.5% from the date of application till realisation.
(iii) The appellant of First Appeal No. 1861 of 2004 – Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1294 of 1991 shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 1,728/- alongwith interest at 7.5% from the date of application till realisation.
(iv) The impugned award passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1219 & 1293 of 1991 is hereby confirmed.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//