1. The appellants herein have challenged the award dated 21.04.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Jamnagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 126 of 1996 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 1,09,000/- as compensation with interest and costs.
2. The appellants filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 6 lakhs for the death of one Deepak Gosai who died in a vehicular accident which occurred on 03.02.1996 when he was going on a motorcycle as a pillion rider driven by original opponent no. 1. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
Mr.
Shrimali, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal erred in assessing the appellant's monthly income. He submitted that having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 12, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the respondents supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that no interference is called for. He submitted that in fact the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on higher side and the same is required to be reduced.
5. Heard.
In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 it is held as under:
"Where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family numbers is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th), where the number of Dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of Dependant family members exceed six.
Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because ti is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parents/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a Dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be Dependant on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a Dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and Dependant on the income of the deceased, as in the case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.
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 present case the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 18000/- per annum. Nothing is pointed out to take a different figure in that regard. In the present case the mother is the claimant and therefore 50% of the total income is required to be deducted. Accordingly the loss of income will be Rs. 9000/- per annum.
7. 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 16 awarded in the present case is on higher side. The just and proper multiplier would be 13. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs.1,17,000/- (Rs. 9000 x 13).
8. As regards the rest of the awards under various heads, the appellants shall be entitled to Rs. 10000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses.
9. Therefore the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs.1,32,000/- (i.e. Rs. 117000/- for future loss of income + Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate + Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses). The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 109000/- and therefore in all, an additional amount of Rs. 23000/- is required to be paid to the appellants.
10. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The appellants shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 23,000/- alongwith interest at 7.5% from the date of application till realisation. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top