1. In connection with the vehicular accident that occurred on 22.12.1988 involving a Truck bearing registration No.GRQ 6920 and in which Kanubhai Gandabhai Parmar expired, the legal heirs of the deceased filed M.A.C.P. 1776/1993 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Spl.), Kheda at Nadiad. The said claim petition came to be partly allowed by judgment and award dated 11.02.1994 whereby, respondents no.1 to 3, original claimants, were awarded total compensation of Rs.1.45 Lacs along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs. Against the impugned award, the present appeal has been preferred.
2. It has been mainly contended that the Tribunal has committed serious error while computing loss of dependency benefit inasmuch as it has assessed the monthly income of deceased at Rs.1,000/- though there was no evidence on record in that regard. Further, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is also on the higher side.
3. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent-claimants that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and appropriate and this Court may not disturb the same considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears from the record that the monthly income of deceased was assessed at Rs.1,000/- on the basis that the deceased was serving as a labourer at the relevant point of time. Considering the facts of the case, I find the above assessment made by the Tribunal to be appropriate. However, it has not followed the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav and Another, 1996 (3) SCC 179 for arriving at the monthly income of the deceased. By adopting the principle laid down in Sarla Dixit's case (supra), the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.1,500/-. Considering the fact that the deceased was a bachelor and was survived by his mother, deduction of ½ has to be made towards personal expenses for calculating the dependency benefit. By deducting ½ amount, the monthly dependency benefit would come to Rs.750/- and the annual dependency benefit at Rs.9,000/-. The deceased was 22 years of age at the time of accident and therefore, the appropriate multiplier prevalent at the relevant time was 14. Therefore, the total dependency benefit would come to Rs.1,26,000/-.
5. The claimants shall be entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,41,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,45,000/- as total compensation. Hence, the excess amount of Rs.4,000/- is required to be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the rate awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. In my opinion, it would be appropriate to award interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the original claimants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,41,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs. The excess amount of Rs.4,000/- shall be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*