[1] This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 09.11.1992, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot, in M.A.C.P. No.644 of 1988, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.2,85,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
[2] The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the accident took place on 09.05.1988 at about 6.40 p.m on Rajkot Kuvadava Road, Near Vaishali Roadways Office. In the said accident, several claimants were seriously injured and the husband of the present appellant No.1 expired and, therefore, the present petition is filed by the legal heirs. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
[3] Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the accident occurred in the year 1988. He submitted that the tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs.2,85,000/- against the claim of Rs.8,25,000/-. He submitted that the tribunal erred in considering the income of deceased as only Rs.2,200/- p.m which the deceased was earning at the time of the accident and not considering the prospective future income of the deceased. He submitted that in 1986, the salary of the claimant was Rs.1,800/- p.m whereas in the year 1988 i.e. within a span of two years, the income of deceased was Rs.2,200/- p.m. He submitted that within a short span of two years, the income of the deceased has increased to Rs.500/- p.m. He submitted that the tribunal has not deducted Rs.700/- as personal expenses of the deceased from Rs.2,200/- as salary.
[4] He submitted that the tribunal awarded multiplier of 24 instead of the fact that deceased was aged about 27 years. He submitted that the tribunal erred in awarding Rs.10,000/- under head of loss of expectation of life, Rs.25,000/- under head of loss of expectation of life and Rs.10,000/- under the head of obsequies expenses as well as transportation charges instead of Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, he lastly submitted that the award passed by the tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside by allowing this appeal.
[5] On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents have opposed the appeal and have prayed to dismiss the same, as being without merit.
[6] I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record as well as the judgement and award of the tribunal. The income assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper. Nothing is pointed out to take a contrary view. I find that the contention of learned advocate for the appellant is required to be accepted as far as multiplier is concerned. The Tribunal has committed an error in adopting the multiplier of 15. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2009(6) SCC, 121, the tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 15, instead of 17. Considering the amount of Rs.2250/- p.m as income and, after, deducting 1/5 qua his own expenses it comes to Rs.1800/- p.m and yearly Rs.2,16,000/- would come. Considering the age of deceased at the time of accident, 17 multiplier is required to be adopted, therefore, it comes to Rs.3,67,200/- towards loss of dependency. The tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards conventional amount, but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount is required to be enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, the total amount of compensation come to Rs.3,92,200/- minus Rs.2,85,000/-, which has been already awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.1,07,200/- as additional amount for which the claimants are entitled to with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the opponents from the date of application.
[6] The judgment and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.1,07,200/- with interest @ 7.5% interest. The decree be drawn accordingly. Present appeal is partly allowed.
[ K. S. JHAVERI, J. ] vijay