By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Surendranagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.434 of 2001, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,93,000/- to original claimant with running interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the application till its realization.
This claim petition arise out of the vehicular accident, which occurred on 18.04.2001. On that day the deceased Kishorsinh was going by driving truck No.GTG-1109 and at that time, one truck No.GJ-3-V-8841, driven by original opponent No.2 came from opposite side and dashed with the truck of the deceased. As a result, the the deceased sustained injuries and died. Therefore, the original claimants filed claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation.
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.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding that original opponent No.2 was 85% liable and the deceased was only 15% liable for the accident. He has further contended that the Tribunal has erred in adopting the multiplier of
15. Learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is called for.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
So far as the issue of negligence is concerned, the Tribunal, relying upon the FIR at Exh.27 and Panchanama at Exh.28, rightly held original opponent No.1 85% liable and the deceased 15% liable for the accident. The Tribunal has discussed this aspect in Paragraph No.6 of the judgment and in my view the Tribunal was completely justified in assessing the negligency of both the vehicles.
So far as the issue of quantum is concerned, the Tribunal, rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. 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, a rise of 30% in income should be given for calculating prospective income as the deceased was aged about 41 years. Thus, the monthly prospective income comes to Rs.3,900/-. Considering the fact that the parents, wife and three children are the applicants and also considering the ratio laid down in case of Sarla Verma's Case (Supra), 1/4 amount is required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Hence, monthly dependency comes to Rs.2,925/- and accordingly annual dependency comes to Rs.35,100/-. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 41 years, the multiplier of 14 should have been adopted, applying ratio laid down in case of Sarla Verma's Case (Supra). Hence, total amount of dependency comes to Rs.4,91,400/-.
Further, original claimants are entitled for Rs.10,000/- for loss to estate, Rs.10,000/- for consortium and Rs.5,000/- for the funeral expenses. Hence, in all original claimants are entitled to Rs.5,16,400/- [Rs.4,91,400/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5,000/-]. As the deceased is held 15% liable for the accident, the original applicants are entitled for Rs.4,38,940/- as compensation. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.5,93,000/-, therefore, the balance amount of Rs.1,54,060/- is required to be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company. But, as the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is restricted to Rs.1,48,000/-, only an amount of Rs.1,48,000/- is required to be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company.
In the premises, the amount of Rs.1,48,000/- is ordered to be paid back along with the interest, cost, if any 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 with interest, cost, if any. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.] ..mitesh..
Top