1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad City in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.271 of 2000, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,01,600/- to original claimant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the application till its realization.
2. The facts of the case is that on 19.06.1999, the deceased was travelling as a cleaner in Tempo No.GJ-1-T-2198, which was driven by original opponent No.1 in rash and negligent manner. At that time, it was raining and one tanker No.MP- 09-KA-0435 was parked and back light of the tanker was not working. The original opponent No.1 could not apply the brakes and the tempo dashed with the stationary tanker. As a result, the appellant sustained several injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the applicants filed claim petition being Motor Accident Claims Petition No.271 of 2000 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad City for compensation.
3. The Tribunal, after hearing learned advocate for the parties and after considering the evidence produced on record, decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated herein above, against which present appeal is preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has erred in calculating prospective income at Rs.3,000/-. He has further contended that the Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.30,000/- for loss of expectation of life. He has further contended that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on higher side.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that no interference is called for and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. So far as the issue of negligence is concerned, the Tribunal after considering the oral evidence of original opponent No.1 at Exh.33, FIR at Exh.35 and Panchanama at Exh.36 rightly held that the driver of the tempo was negligent to the extent of 80% and the driver of the offending tanker was negligent to the extent of 20%, who was not joined as a party.
8. From the record, it appears that the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1000/- since, he was earning his livelihood by working as a cleaner, at the relevant time. Considering the said fact, the said assessment made by the Tribunal is just and appropriate. It is true that the claimants had not produced any documentary evidence on record to prove the income of the deceased. However, I find that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the prospective income at Rs.3,000/-. The Tribunal ought to have calculated the prospective income of the deceased as per the principle laid down in case of Sarla Dixit and another Vs. Balwant Yadav and another reported in 1996(3) SCC 179., Applying the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- [Rs.1000 x 2=2000 + 1000 = 3000, Rs.3000/2=Rs.1500]. Considering the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009(6) SCC 121, the ½ amount is required to be deducted towards personal expenses. Hence, monthly dependency comes to Rs.750/- [Rs.1500/2] and accordingly, annual dependency comes to Rs.9,000/-. The original claimants were father and mother of the deceased and aged about 50 and 52 years at the time of accident, therefore, the multiplier of 11 should have been adopted, instead of 18. Hence, total amount of dependency comes to Rs.99,000/-.
9. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- for loss of expectation of life and Rs.6,000/- for transportation and funeral charges. In my view, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding aforesaid compensation. The original claimants are entitled for Rs.10,000/- for loss to estate, Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.6,000/- for loss of expectation of life. Hence, in all the original applicants would be entitled for Rs.1,20,000/-. As the driver of the stationary tanker was held 20% liable for the accident and he was not a party to the claim petition, the claimants are entitled for 80% of the calculated amount. Hence, the original claimants are entitled for Rs.96,000/-. As the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.2,01,600/-, the balance amount of Rs.1,05,600/-[Rs.2,01,600 – Rs.96,000/-] are required to be refunded to the appellant- Insurance Company..
10. In the premises, the balance amount of Rs.1,05,600/- will be paid back along with the interest, cost, if any to the appellant-Insurance Company. It is, however, observed that if the amount deposited before the Tribunal is already withdrawn by the original claimants, the same shall not be recovered from the original claimants and the Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. But, if the amount has not been withdrawn by the original claimants, the same shall be refunded with interest, cost, if any. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
..mitesh..
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.]