1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 14.08.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main] Rajkot in M.A.C.P. No. 582 of 2005, whereby the claim petition was allowed and the original claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.2,04,500/- along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of the application till its realization.
2. The original claimants had filed application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of death of minor Vipul in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 27.05.2005. The said claim petition came to be partly allowed, by way of the impugned award, which is challenged in this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was minor and the Tribunal has not properly assessed the notional income. The multiplier taken by the Tribunal is on higher side and that the Tribunal has followed the structured formula as per Second Schedule of the Act mechanically and such reliance has resulted into awarding higher amount to the claimant.
4. As a result of hearing and perusal of the record, there is no dispute that the deceased was 12 years old. As regards the income of the minor is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Vs. Gurumallamma, reported in 2009(9) SCALE 764 held as under:
"8.
Multiplier stricto sensu is not applicable in the case of fatal accident. The multiplier would be applicable only in case of disability in non-fatal accidents as would appear from the Note 5 appended to the Second Schedule. Thus, even if the application of multiplier is ignored in the present case and the income of the deceased is taken to be Rs.3,300/- per month, the amount of compensation payable would be somewhat between 6,84,000/- to Rs.7,60,000/-. As the Second Schedule provides for a structured formula, the question of determination of payment of compensation by application of judicial mind which is otherwise necessary for a proceeding arising out of a claim petition filed under Section 166 would not arise. The Tribunals in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act is required to determine the amount of compensation as specified in the Second Schedule. It is not required to apply the multiplier except in a case of injuries and disabilities.
The Parliament in laying down the amount of compensation in the Second Schedule, as indicated herein before, in its wisdom, provided for payment of some amount which should be treated to be the minimum. It took into consideration the fact that a person's potentiality to earn is highest when he is aged between 25 and 30 years and that is why in case of permanent disability multiplier of 18 has been specified. The very fact that even if the deceased had an income of Rs.3,000/- per month, he being aged about 15 years, would receive a sum of Rs.60,000/- but if his income was Rs.40,000/- per annum, his legal heirs and representatives would receive a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-. In the case of any non-earning person, the notional income has been fixed at Rs.15,000/- per annum."
5. In view of the above it is very clear that the Tribunal is not required to strictly apply the multiplier except in a case of injuries and disabilities. Even in injury or disability case multiplier of 18 has been specified. It is further evident that in case of minor application of multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
6. In the present case the Tribunal has taken the income of Rs.15,000/- per annum. The deceased was 12 years old. Therefore, by applying multiplier of 20 years as per the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, it would come to Rs.3,00,000/- [Rs.15,000 x 20]. 1/3rd deduction would come to Rs.1,00,000/- and therefore the net amount would be Rs.2,00,00/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,500/- under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses, which in my opinion is just and proper. The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.2,04,500/- as compensation to the claimants.
7. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. In my opinion, the assessment made by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by the Tribunal in the impugned award and hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/ Top