1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 15.03.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Jamkhambhaliya in Claim Case No.888 of 1998 wherein the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the aforesaid claim petition by awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 350000/ along with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.
2.0 On 09.08.1998 Prakashpuri Nathupuri Gosai was returning from Junagadh to Vadinar in luxury bus No. G.Q.E 2089. The bus was driven by the driver in a full speed and in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the bus turned turtle near Vijrakhi Dam. Prakashu Puri died in the said accident. The claimants therefore, filed the aforesaid claim petition wherein the learned Tribunal passed the aforesaid award which is challenged in the present appeal.
3.0 Learned advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal has committed error in quantifying the award at Rs.350000/; that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd amount from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; that looking to the fact that the deceased was unmarried and one real claimant is the mother of the deceased, 50% is required to be deducted towards personal expenses ; that multiplier of 15 is on higher side inspite of the fact that the mother admitted in her crossexamination that her age was 60 years and that the other two claimants are brothers who cannot be said to be dependents.
4.0 Learned advocate for the respondent supported the judgement and award of the learned Tribunal and submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.
5.0 Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record.
6.0 As far as income in concerned, the same is not disputed. As far as loss of dependency benefit is concerned, it is found that that the deceased was bachelor and the claimant is the mother. Therefore in view of the decision of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121,, normally 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Hence 50% benefit of the compensation should be computed by taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2700/ as base and the dependency benefits for the claimants would come to Rs. 1350/ per month which on annual basis would work out to Rs. 16200/. As far as multiplier is concerned, the age of the mother is required to be considered. The age of th mother was 45 years, therefore, multiplier of 14 will be applied for future loss of income as per the ratio laid down in case of Sarla Verma (supra). By applying multiplier of 14, the future loss of income would come to Rs.226800/ ( Rs. 16200/ x 14). The Tribunal has awarded Rs .3,24,000/ for future loss of income which in my opinion is on higher side. Therefore, there is an excess amount of Rs. 97200/.
7.0 Further, the amount of Rs. 20000/ towards loss to the estate is on higher side. It should be Rs. 10000/ as per the principles laid down in case of Sarla Verma ( Supra) . Therefore, there is an excess amount of Rs. 10,000/. The amount of Rs. 5000/ towards funeral expenses is just and proper.
8.0 In view of the above, the total compensation would come to Rs.
242800/ (Rs. 226800/ towards future loss of income + Rs. 10000/ towards loss to the estate + Rs. 1000/ towards transportation charges + Rs. 5000/ towards funeral expenses). The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 350000/ Therefore, an excess amount of Rs. 107200/ ( Rs. 350000/ Rs. 242800/) shall be refunded to the insurance company with the proportionate cost. The Judgement and award is modified accordingly. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*