1. The appellants herein have challenged the award dated 22.10.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamnagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 335 of 1995 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 2,53,000/- as compensation with interest and costs.
2. It is the case of the appellant that on 18.05.1995 while Shri Ramji Virji was riding his motorcycle, a public carrier bearing registration No. GQY 5382 which was being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner dashed with the motorcycle as a result of which Shri Ramji Virji sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same. The appellants therefore filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 4 lakhs. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
Mr.
Rachh, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased's notional income is only Rs. 24000/- per annum when he was earning more than Rs. 36000/- per annum. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered atleast Rs. 36000/- as his income. He further submitted that the Tribunal has not considered future loss of income and thereby erred in awarding less amount.
3.1 He submitted that having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121, the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd from the computed salary for personal expense when the claimants were more. He submitted that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 3000/- under the head of funeral expenses.
4. Before proceeding further it is required to be noted that the issues with regard to income and deduction by way of personal expenses are already settled by the decisions of Apex Court. 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."
5. In the present case, the Tribunal has considered the fact that no receipt of any evidence was produced on behalf of the appellants to establish that the pay of the deceased was Rs. 3000/- as claimed by them and therefore the Tribunal has rightly assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 24000/- per annum. Nothing is pointed out to take a different figure in that regard. Considering the fact that the Tribunal has assessed notional income, prospective income cannot be taken into account.
5.1 In the present case, the claimants are six and therefore 1/4th is required to be deducted qua personal expenses as per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Accordingly, the loss of dependency per month shall come to Rs. 18000/- per annum.
6. I am of the view that, looking to the age of the claimants more particularly the mother, the multiplier of 15 is on lower side. In view of decision of Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier of 16 shall be just and proper. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs. 2,88,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 2,40,000/- under this head. Therefore the claimants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 48,000/- under the head of future loss of income. The appellants shall also be entitled to Rs. 25000/- towards conventional expenses as against which the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 13000/- and therefore an additional amount of Rs. 2000/- is also required to be awarded under the head of funeral expenses and Rs. 10000/- under the head of loss of consortium. Therefore the appellants shall be entitled to Rs. 60,000/- as additional compensation.
7. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The appellants shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 60,000/- 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