(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) 1. Present appeal arises against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Pletition No.1440 of 2003, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.7,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum to the original claimants.
2. Short facts are that on 2.8.2003, at about 8 O'clock, near village Haldarva, on Spender motorcycle, bearing registration No.GJ 5 BQ 3586, deceased Jitendrabhai Patel was going as a pillion rider with his brother Rajesh Thakorbhai Patel. At that time, one Tempo, bearing RTO No.RJ-2G 2340 dashed with the motorcycle and as a result thereof, driver of the motorcycle Rajeshbhai as well as pillion rider Jitendrabhai sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Such accident gave rise to two claim petitions, being MACP No.1440 of 2003 preferred by the wife of deceased Jitendrabhai and his daughter as well as parents for compensation of Rs.30 lakhs, and MACP No.1441 of 2003 preferred by the parents of deceased Rajeshbhai, who was driver of the motorcycle for compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. The Claims Tribunal at the conclusion of the proceedings in MACP No.1440 of 2003, awarded the above referred amount and in MACP No.1441 of 2003, it awarded Rs.3,73,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum. Under the circumstances, the present appeal is limited to the award passed in MACP No.1440 of 2003 only.
3. We have heard learned counsel Mr. Hiren Modi appearing for appellants- original claimants and Mr. Shashikant Gade appearing for the main contesting party, i.e. respondent No.3 Insurance Company. The other parties to the proceedings are served but none appears on their behalf.
4. We have considered the record and proceedings and we have also considered the judgment and the reasons recorded by the Tribunal.
5. First contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the Tribunal has committed error in awarding compensation towards the economic loss. The contention was two folds, inasmuch as one was that the income of the deceased has not been properly assessed and another was deduction towards personal expenses is not properly considered. It was also submitted that the multiplier is also not properly applied as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009)6 SCC 121. Whereas, learned counsel Mr.Gade for respondent No.3 Insurance Company submitted that since no proof of income was produced on record, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income at Rs.4000/- per month of the deceased. It was also submitted that the salary slip, upon which reliance was placed, was without revenue stamp in spite of the fact that the payment was exceeding Rs.500/- and therefore, the same could be said as unreliable and therefore, the same may not be taken into consideration by this Court. The Tribunal has also, therefore, rightly assessed the income of Rs.4000/- per month of the deceased.
6. Evidence on record shows that in the claim petition, there is averment made that the deceased was working with Kalpana Enterprise and the salary was Rs.7254/-. The aforesaid averment is at para 5 of the claim petition made before the Tribunal. In support of the aforesaid pleadings, father of deceased Thakorbhai Khusalbhai Patel filed affidavit Exh.20 and he was also cross-examined and the said evidence shows that the deceased was serving with Kalpana Enterprise and his monthly salary was Rs.7254/-. In the cross- examination, nothing contrary has come out. Further, Pramul Anantrai Thaker, who was working as Accountant in Kalpana Enterprise, was examined at Exh.30. In his deposition, he has stated that the deceased was being paid wages of Rs.234/- daily and he has produced the salary slip for payment of the salary of Rs.7254/- for the month of June. He has also stated that the document bears his signature in capacity as a person who paid salary and signature of the deceased who received it, was also identified by him. Therefore, in the cross-examination of the said witness, it has not been challenged on the ground that the signature of the deceased was concocted on the said salary slip. The salary slip shows that net salary was Rs.6383/- after deduction. Contention that since the revenue stamp was not affixed or used, this Court may disbelieve the salary slip and also the witness, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the proceedings before the Tribunal are summary proceedings and quasi- judicial in nature. Further, had it been the evidence prepared by the deponent with the help of the claimants, it would not bear the signature of the deceased who had already expired. Under these circumstances, we find that the approach on the part of the Tribunal in not considering the salary slip and assessing the income at Rs.4000/- of the deceased could be said as erroneous. We are of the view that the income of the deceased could be assessed at Rs.6000/- since net salary was Rs.6383/- by rounding figure in thousands. If the basis is taken at Rs.6000/- per month as income of the deceased, after considering the prospective income, towards economic loss, the figure would come to Rs.9000/- per month. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant is right in contending that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income at Rs.4000/- per month of the deceased.
7. The aforesaid takes us to examine the aspect for deduction to be made towards the personal expenses and the application of multiplier. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and more particularly, the observations made in para 30, if number of claimants are 4 to 6, appropriate deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4th of the amount and not 1/3rd as considered by the Tribunal. 1/4th of the amount of Rs.9000/- would come to Rs.2250/- and consequently, net amount towards economic loss of the dependent members of family of the deceased would be Rs.6750/- per month. In the very decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) as per the observations made in para 42, multiplier to be considered for the age group of the person 26 to 30 years is 17 and therefore, the Tribunal has committed error in applying multiplier of 15.
8. The aforesaid discussion was to show that the claimants would be entitled to the following compensation:-
Rs.6750 x 12 x 17 = Rs.13,77,000/-
As against the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.7,20,000/-. Under the circumstances, the said part of the award of the Tribunal deserves to be modified. Other compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, total of Rs.40,000/-, does not deserve to be interfered with.
9. Hence, it is held that the appellants- original claimants would be entitled to compensation of Rs.14,17,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition and not the amount of Rs.7,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until the amount is realized.
10. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to cost.
Sd/-
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) omkar Sd/-
(C.L. SONI, J.)