1. This appeal has been preferred by appellant, original opponent no.2 in M.A.C.P. No.408/1989, which was preferred by respondents no.1 to 3 herein, original applicants, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad claiming total compensation of Rs.4.00 Lacs in connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 08.06.1989 in which Shankerbhai Bhalabhai Nadia, husband of respondent no.1 herein, had expired.
2. The said claim petition was allowed in part by judgment and award dated 28.04.1995 whereby, the claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.3,24,500/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company is limited up to Rs.50,000/- only in view of the Insurance Policy Exhibit-90 and the oral evidence of the concerned Officer of the Insurance Company Exhibit-91. However, the Tribunal erred in ignoring the above aspect and in holding that the liability of the appellant was joint and several along with the other opponents.
3.1 It was further contended that the income of deceased at Rs.3,900/- per month assessed by the Tribunal was disproportionate and contrary to the law on the subject. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and it has been submitted that the compensation awarded deserves to be reduced.
4. Learned counsel for respondent-original claimants supported the impugned award and submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and appropriate. Hence, this Court may not disturb the same.
5. It has been contended on behalf of respondent no.4 that the vehicle in question is governed by the provisions of Section-95(2)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company would be “the amount of liability incurred”. He, therefore, submitted that the contention regarding limited liability raised by the appellant is misconceived. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Jameskutty Jacob v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others, (2003) 7 SCC 131.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It appears from the evidence on record that the vehicle involved in the accident is a Crane, which is neither a “passenger vehicle” nor a “goods vehicle”. If we refer the provisions of Section-95(2)(c) of the said Act, it becomes clear that the vehicle in question would fall under the said proviso. The said provision deals with “the amount of liability incurred”. When the evidence on record proves that the vehicle involved would fall under the category of Section-95(2)(c) of the said Act, then the liability of the Insurance Company would be the amount of liability incurred and not limited. Considering the facts of the case and the evidence on record, the Tribunal was completely justified in holding the appellant-Insurance Company liable to indemnify the insured for the total amount.
7. However, on the issue of quantum, I find that the assessment of prospective income at Rs.3,900/- per month made by the Tribunal is erroneous and contrary to the principle rendered in Sarla Verma's case (supra). According to the principle rendered in Sarla Verma's case (supra), a rise of 30% in income has to be considered for arriving at prospective income of deceased since the deceased was 49 years of age at the time of accident. Now, if we assess his monthly income at Rs.2,000/-, the prospective income would come to Rs.2,600/-, For computing dependency benefit, a deduction of 1/3rd is to be made towards personal living expenses of deceased since the total number of dependents is three. Accordingly, the monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,734/- and annual loss at Rs.20,796/-, which is rounded off to Rs.20,800/-. The appropriate multiplier would be 13. Thus, the total amount under the head of loss of dependency would come to Rs.2,70,400/-.
8. Over and above the amounts of Rs.2,500/- towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, the claimants shall be entitled for Rs.10,000/-
under the head of loss of estate, another Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all, they are entitled for Rs.3,02,900/-, viz. Rs.32,500/- under the above heads plus Rs.2,70,400/- under the head of loss of dependency.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the respondent-original claimants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,02,900/- [Rupees Three lacs two thousand nine hundred only] along with interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal. The excess amount lying with the Tribunal shall be refunded to the appellant. The impugned award stands modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*