1. Mr.Hiren Modi, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent no.3-Insurance company, considering the limited dispute raised by the appellants-original claimants in this appeal, requested that the appeal may be finally heard today and may be disposed of accordingly. It is further submitted that since the instant appeal is filed for enhancement of amount of compensation and respondent no.3-Insurance Company is represented by the learned advocate, the presence of respondent nos.1 & 2 viz. driver and owner of the offending vehicle may not be required.
2. In above view of the matter, the instant appeal is heard today and is being disposed of by this judgment.
3. The appellants, who were original claimants before the Tribunal challenged the impugned judgment and award dated 12.05.2010, rendered by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Auxi), Anand, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.5424 of 2006 (Old M.A.C.P No.3267 of 2002). The Tribunal awarded in all Rs.2,89,600/- by way of compensation to the appellants-claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per-annum, from the date of filing of claim petition, till the realization with proportionate costs.
4. Mr.Hiren Modi, learned advocate for the appellants-claimants, at the outset, submitted that though, as per the case of the claimants, the deceased Jeshangbhai was aged about 45 years and he was earning Rs.50,000/- per-annum out of his agricultural land and Rs.6000/- per-annum out of his work, as an electrician, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.2100/- i.e Rs.25,200/- per-annum. It is submitted that thus, the Tribunal erred in fixing the annual income of the deceased.
4.1 Mr.Hiren Modi, learned advocate for the appellants-claimants, however, submitted that while awarding compensation under the head of loss to future dependency benefits, the Tribunal not at all took into consideration the future prospective income of the deceased. It is submitted that there is no dispute that the deceased was aged about 45 years and at least 30% increase in his future prospective income should have been considered by the Tribunal.
5. Mr.Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent no.3-Insurance Company submitted that no error is committed by the Tribunal and the appeal may be dismissed.
6. I have taken into consideration the submissions advanced by learned advocates representing both the parties, so also impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal. While fixing the actual monthly income of the deceased, the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award examined oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants. In Para-11 of the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that though, as per the revenue record, the deceased was holding agricultural land, but about his exact income derived from the agricultural operation, the claimants did not produce any exact evidence and about the case of the claimants regarding the income derived by the deceased, as an electrician, again the Tribunal came to the conclusion that no cogent and convincing evidence regarding the exact income came to be produced. The Tribunal then relied upon the case of Ashwani Kumar Mishra Vs. P. Muniambabu & Ors. reported in 1999 ACJ 1105 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, in the instant matter, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that, at the time of accident, the deceased must be earning at least Rs.2100/- per month i.e Rs.25,200/- per-annum. This Court is of the opinion that no apparent error appears to have been committed by the Tribunal while arriving at the conclusion that before the accident, the actual income of the deceased was about Rs.2100/- per month.
7. However, considering the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal, it transpires that the Tribunal did not take into consideration the future prospective income of the deceased while awarding compensation under the head of loss to the future dependency benefits. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the age of the deceased being 45 years at the time of accident and death, the Tribunal should have considered at least 30% increase in the future prospective income of the deceased. Under Such circumstances, it can safely be said that the future prospective income of the deceased should have been assessed at-least Rs.32,760/- per-annum. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased. However, as per the cause title of the claim petition, there are four dependents upon the income of the deceased viz. widow and three children. The Tribunal therefore, should have deducted 1/4th amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Deducting 1/4th amount out of Rs.32,760/-, this Court comes to the conclusion that the annual loss which the appellants-original claimants sustained towards future dependency benefits comes to Rs.24,570/-. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the age of the deceased, so also age of the dependents, the Tribunal rightly applied multiplier of 15 years. Thus, the appellants– original claimants are entitled to recover Rs.3,68,550/- (Rs.24,570 X 15) by way of compensation under the head of loss to the future dependency benefits.
8. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.3000/- towards transportation and Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses. This Court is of the opinion that no apparent error appears to have been committed by the Tribunal in awarding in all Rs.25,000/- under the aforementioned heads.
9. Thus, the claimants are entitled to recover Rs.3,68,550/- by way of compensation under the head of loss to the future dependency benefits and Rs.25,000/- more under the aforementioned heads, and thus in all, the appellants-original claimants are entitled to recover Rs.3,93,550/-. The Tribunal awarded in all Rs.2,89,600/- by way of compensation. Thus, the appellants-original claimants are entitled to recover Rs.1,03,950/-by way of additional amount of compensation. The Tribunal awarded the compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per-annum. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants-original claimants are entitled to recover interest on the additional amount of compensation at the rate of 7% per-annum.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed and impugned judgment and award dated 12.05.2010 rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Auxi), Anand, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.5424 of 2006 (Old MACP No.3267 of 2002) is hereby modified and it is directed that the appellants-original claimants are entitled to recover Rs.1,03,950/- by way of additional amount of compensation with interest at the rate of 7% per-annum from the respondents-original opponents with proportionate costs thereon.
11. Mr.Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent no.3-Insurance Company, upon instruction, submitted that the enhanced amount of compensation shall be deposited with the concerned Tribunal preferably within a period of three months.
12. Upon the amount being deposited, the concerned Tribunal shall disburse the amount on the same line in terms of impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal. No costs.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.) *Suchit