1. This First Appeal is at the instance of the claimants in a proceeding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and is directed against an award dated January 10, 1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. IV at Ahmedabad [ “Tribunal”] in M.A.C.P. No. 83 of 1990, thereby awarding a total amount of Rs.
4,72,000/- in favour of the claimants with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. It was further stipulated in the award that if the amount was paid within two months, the interest should be calculated at the rate of 12% per annum.
2. It appears that during the pendency of the claim application before the Tribunal, the mother of the victim died and thus, the ultimate compensation was payable in favour of the widow and the son of the deceased.
3. Being dissatisfied, the widow and the son of the deceased have come up with the present appeal.
4. It may not be out of place to mention here that neither the Insurance Company nor the owners of the offending vehicle have preferred either any appeal or any Cross Objection in this appeal.
5. It appears from the record that while the deceased was driving his scooter, the offending vehicle struck the scooter from behind, as a result, the victim was seriously injured and died in the long run. At the time of the accident, the victim was aged 45 years. It appears that he was a businessman and was an income-tax assessee. There is no dispute regarding the age of the victim which was 45 years.
6. The Tribunal below, on consideration of the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle was solely responsible for the accident and that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the victim in the accident. The Tribunal further came to a conclusion that if the victim could have remained alive, he would have continued as an active bread earner of the family for atleast 13 years more and his income would have reached up to Rs. 1.00 Lac per annum, though at the relevant point of time, he was earning the income of Rs. 80,000/- per annum. The Tribunal below held that a sum of Rs. 28,000/- should be deducted from that amount as personal expenditure of the victim and on the basis of remaining sum of Rs. 52,000/- per annum, the Tribunal decided to apply the multiplier of 8 and accordingly, arrived at a figure of Rs. 4,16,000/-, which, according to the Tribunal, should be the amount of loss of dependency. In addition to that, the learned Tribunal below added Rs. 20,000/- for loss of expectation of life, Rs.
10,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 6,000/- as medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs. 3,000/- towards after- death expenditure, Rs. 1,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs. 700/- towards the attendant expenses and thus, the Tribunal arrived at a total figure of Rs. 4,71,700/- which was rounded up to Rs. 4,72,000/-.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, I find that the Tribunal below has committed substantial error of law in applying the multiplier of 8 inspite of its specific finding that in ordinary course, the victim could have been alive and remain as actual bread-earner of the family for atleast 13 years more. After such finding, the application of multiplier of 8 by the Tribunal cannot but be described as perverse application of multiplier. In my opinion, having regard to the age of the victim and the fact that he was an income-tax assessee for the past several years before the accident, it was a fit case where multiplier of 13 at least could have been applied on the basis of the income of Rs. 80,000/- per annum, even if we do not take into consideration the future prospect from business.
8. On the basis of the application of multiplier of 13 upon the annual dependency of Rs. 52,000/- [Rs.80,000-Rs.28,000], the amount comes to Rs. 6,76,000/-, whereas the learned Tribunal had arrived at a figure of Rs. 4,16,000/- under that head. Therefore, there should be increase of Rs. 2,60,000/- on that head alone.
9. Even if I do not interfere with the other heads upon which the Tribunal below has further awarded a sum of Rs. 55,000/-, in my opinion, the award should be increased by Rs.2,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the filing of the application till December 31, 1999 and thereafter, at the rate of 8% till the actual payment on this added amount. There is no scope of reducing the interest already awarded by the Tribunal on the amount already awarded by the Tribunal inasmuch as neither the Insurance Company nor the owner of the vehicle have preferred either any appeal or any cross objection challenging such finding.
10. The award of the Tribunal is, thus, modified to the extent indicated above. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- with interest at the rate indicated above, positively within three months from today. The appeal is thus allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
Let R & P be sent to the Tribunal forthwith.
(BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, CJ.) pirzada/-