1.0 The above appeals are directed against the judgement and award dated 24.10.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( Aux.I), Ahmedabad In Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 115 of 1994 and Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 37 of 1994 wherein the Tribunal has partly allowed the aforesaid claim petitions by awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ and Rs. 3,24,000/ respectively.
2.0 On 24.11.1993 at about 2.45 p.m. Mahendrakumar was driving the motor cycle No. GJ 1 A 870 and Bipinkumar was a pillion rider. The truck bearing registration No. GJ 1 T 4583 dashed with the motor cycle near Kachhi Hotel on Sanand Sakhej Highway because of excessive speed and rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck. In the said vehicular accident, Mahendrakumar and Bipinkumar died. The legal heirs of both the deceased filed the aforesaid claim petitions wherein the learned Tribunal passed the aforesaid award.
3.0 In First Appeal No. 1360 of 2003, learned advocate appearing for the appellant contended that learned Tribunal has committed error in taking the prospective income of deceased at Rs.4500/ inspite of the fact that the specific question was put that the deceased was not paying the income tax; that 1/4th of the income is wrongly deducted for dependency loss of benefit it should be 1/3rd deduction towards loss of dependency loss.
4.0 In First Appeal No. 1361 of 2003, learned advocate for the appellant contended that learned Tribunal erred in taking the prospective income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/ per month; that the learned Tribunal erred in taking the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 2000/ per month without there being any evidence on record.
5.0 Learned advocate for the respondent contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. He further submitted that since the claimant has not paid any income tax, the amount of Rs. 4500 towards prospective income is just and proper.
6.0 Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents on record.
7.0 In First Appeal No. 1360 of 2003, considering the contention that in the year 1994 the taxable income was Rs. 28000/, the amount of Rs.36000 is required to be considered. Further, 1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses would come to Rs. 12,000/ and therefore, dependency loss of benefit would come to Rs. 24000/ ( Rs. 36000/ Rs. 12000/) per annum. Considering the age of 48 years, 13 multiplier is applied in view of principles laid down in case of Sarla Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2009(6) SCC 121. Therefore, future loss of income would come to Rs.3,12, 000/. By awarding Rs. 10000/ towards loss to the estate, Rs. 5000/ towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10000/ towards loss of consortium, total compensation would come to Rs. 3,37,000/. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,00,000/. Therefore there is an excess amount of 1,63,000/. ( Rs. 500000/ Rs. 337000/).
8.0 In First Appeal No. 1361 of 2003, as far as income is concerned in absence of any documentary evidence the Tribunal has assessed the income of Rs.2000/ per month. The deceased was aged 46 years.
Therefore, 30% is required to be increased as per the decision of Sarla Verma (Supra). 30% of Rs. 2000/ would come to Rs. 600/ and therefore, the amount would come to Rs. 2600/. 1/3rd of Rs. 2600/ would come to Rs. 866.6 and round figure would come to Rs. 870/. By deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses the amount would come to Rs. 1730/per month or Rs. 20760/ per annum as loss of dependency benefit. Considering the age of 46 years, 13 multiplier is applied in view of principles laid down in case of Sarla Verma( Supra). Therefore, future loss of income would come to Rs. 269880/ ( Rs.20760/ x 13). By awarding Rs. 10000/ towards loss to the estate, Rs. 5000/ towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10000/ towards loss of consortium, total compensation would come to Rs. 294880/. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,24,000/. Therefore, there is an excess amount of 29120/ ( Rs. 324000/ Rs. 294880/ ).
9.0 In the premises aforesaid, in First Appeal No. 1360 of 2003, it is held that the insurance company is liable to pay Rs. 3, 37,500/ as compensation. However, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 500000/.
Therefore, an excess amount of 1,63,000/ shall be refunded to the insurance company at the proportionate costs and interest. The appeal is partly allowed. The Judgment and award is modified accordingly.
10.0 In First Appeal No. 1361 of 2003, the insurance company is liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,24,000/. A sum of Rs.29120/ shall be refunded to the insurance company at the proportionate costs and interest. The Judgement and award is modified accordingly. The appeal is partly allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*