1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 06.05.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Surendranagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.483 of 2001 wherein the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the aforesaid claim petition by awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 327500/ along with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.
2.0 On 22.06.2001 Dayabhai Kukabhai was approaching towards his house from his vadiland by walk. When he reached nearby village Dhedhuki on SaylaChotila Highway at about 8.00 p.m. one motor cycle came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Dayabhai who died during the course of his treatment at hospital. The legal heirs of the deceased therefore, filed the aforesaid claim petition wherein the aforesaid award came to be passed which 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.327500/; that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting 1/8th of the amount towards the personal expenses; that 1/3rd should be deducted towards personal expenses; that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding Rs. 50000/ towards pain, shock and suffering suffered by the deceased; that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding Rs. 100000/ towards conventional amount; that amount of Rs. 10000/ towards funeral is on higher side. It should be 5000/ in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121.
4.0 As far as income in concerned, the same is not disputed. As far as loss of dependency benefit is concerned, it is found that the claimants are the the widow and her major sons. Therefore, it would be just and proper to deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenses. The income of the deceased was Rs .3000/ per month. Therefore, by deducting 1/3rd from the monthly earning of Rs. 3000/, the dependency comes to Rs. 2000/ per month or Rs. 24000/ per year. As far as multiplier is concerned, it is found that the deceased was 55 years at the time of accident and therefore, multiplier of 11 will be applied in view of decision in case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, for calculating future loss of income. By applying multiplier of 11 years, the future loss of income would come to Rs. 264000/ ( Rs. 24000/ x 11).
5.0 Further the amount of Rs. 10000/ towards funeral expenses is on higher side. The amount of Rs. 5000/ towards funeral expenses would be just and proper. Further, the claimants are entitled Rs. 10000/ towards loss of consortium and Rs. 10000/ towards loss to the estate.
6.0 In view of the above, the total compensation would come to Rs.
Rs. 289000/ (Rs. 264000/ towards future loss of income + Rs. 10000/ towards loss to the estate + Rs. 10000/ towards loss of consortium + Rs. 5000/ towards funeral expenses). The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 327500/. Therefore, excess amount of Rs. 38500/ ( Rs. 327500/ Rs. 289000/) 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*