1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Auxi), Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.130 of 1998, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,60,000/- to original claimant with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the application till its realization and proportionate cost.
2. The facts of the case is that on 17.08.1997, the deceased was going by driving scooter No.GBE-8080 and that time, one tanker No.GQA-6243, driven by original opponent No.1 came from behind and dashed with the scooter. As a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to death. Therefore, the original claimants filed claim petition being Motor Accident Claims Petition No.130 of 1998 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Auxi), Ahmedbad 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 ought to have assessed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/-. He has further contended that the multiplier of 17 adopted by the Tribunal is on higher side. He has further submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded Rs.50,000/- towards conventional amount for pain, shock, sufferings for expenses for loss of estate as well as consortium.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and stated that no interference is called for and present appeal should be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. So far as the issue of negligence is concerned, that issue is not seriously challenged by the appellant. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral evidence of eye witness Gopaldas Bhagawandas Jagvani at Exh.28, FIR at Exh.46, Panchanama at Exh.47 and charge-sheet at Exh.45 rightly held that the accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of original opponent No.1.
8. So far as the issue of awarding compensation is concerned the Tribunal, after considering documentary evidence at Exh.32, 34 to 38 and oral evidences, rightly assessed prospective income at Rs.4,000/-, monthly dependency at Rs.2,500/- and accordingly annual dependency at Rs.30,000/-, but, the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 16, instead of 17, considering the ratio laid down by Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009(6) SCC 121. Thus, original applicants are entitled for Rs.4,80,000/- [Rs.30,000/- x 16 multiplier] under the head of dependency.
9. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- for pain, shock and suffering, loss to estate and for consortium, which in my view on higher side. The original applicants are entitled for Rs.10,000/- for loss to estate, Rs.10,000/- for consortium and Rs.5,000/- for the funeral expenses. In all, the original applicants are entitled for Rs.5,05,00/- [Rs.4,80,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/-
+ Rs.5,000/-] as compensation. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.5,60,000/-, therefore, balance amount of Rs.55,000/- [Rs.5,60,000/- - Rs.5,05,000/-]is required to be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company.
10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The balance amount of Rs.55,000/- will be paid back 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. The rest of the impugned award remains unaltered. No orders as to costs.
..mitesh..
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.]