(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. The applicant original claimants have filed this appeal calling in question the judgement and award dated 29.6.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Auxi), Vadodara in MACP No.878/2003. Since the appeal pertained to death of predecessor of the present appellants, in an accident which took place on 25.4.2003 and since the questions presented in this appeal did not raise any complicated issue, we decided to hear and dispose of the appeal with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. We also notice that appeal was fixed for hearing on 28.12.2011 by order dated 30.11.2011.
2. Deceased Mohamadhanif Alambhai Mirza was driving his own truck bearing registration no.GJ7X9559 on 25.4.2003. He was going from ChhotaUdepur to Selvas. He was accompanied by his cleaner Safimohammad Valimohmad Mirza. At that time the truck bearing registration no. HR692148 driven by opponent no.1 came from opposite direction and collided with the truck of deceased Mohamadhanif resulting into grievous injuries. He died on the spot. FIR was registered with Kosamba police station. Heirs of deceased Mohammadhanif filed above numbered claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.18,00,000/ from the driver, owner and insurance company of the vehicle involved in the accident. The Claims Tribunal noted that the deceased himself owned a truck which he had purchased through bank loan. He was also regularly driving the vehicle and thereby earning regular income. The Claims Tribunal believed his income on the date of accident at Rs.3500/ per month or Rs.42,000/ per annum. The Tribunal set apart 1/4th thereof for personal expenditure of the deceased leaving 3/4th or sum of Rs.31,500/ per annum as dependency benefit of the dependents and legal heirs of the deceased who happen to be his widow and four minor children. The deceased was aged about 35 to 36 years. Tribunal adopted multiplier of 15 and thus worked out dependency benefits at Rs.4,72,500/. After adding further conventional amounts such as loss of consortium and loss of estate of life etc., the Tribunal computed total compensation payable to the claimants at Rs.4,97,500/ in following manner :
“Rs.4,72,500/ Towards Future Loss of Income(Dependency) Rs.0,10,000/ Towards consortium Rs.0,05,000/ Towards loss of Estate Rs.0,05,000/ Towards Love and affection Rs.0,05,000 Towards Transportation and Funeral Expenses Rs.4,97,500/ Total Compensation”
3. The Tribunal awarded such sum to be recovered from the opponents jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. It is this award of the Claims Tribunal which the claimants have challenged in this appeal seeking further compensation.
4. It is not in dispute that the insurance company has neither questioned its liability to satisfy the award nor questioned the award on any other ground. In short, the Insurance Company has not filed any appeal against the award of the Claims Tribunal.
5. In view of above position, with respect to conclusion of Claims Tribunal regarding negligence of the driver of the truck bearing registration No.HR692148 and the liability of the insurance company to satisfy the award, we need not refer to any length. The short question that calls for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads can be stated to be just compensation or whether the same is inadequate considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. The fact that the deceased owned the truck in question and that he was regularly driving the vehicle for hire is not in any dispute. The claimants had produced RC book of the truck in question at exh.20. Insurance policy of the vehicle was produced at exh.21. The claimants had also produced driving license of the deceased for driving heavy vehicle before the Claims Tribunal. The deceased himself was driving the truck along with his cleaner on the date of accident. Thus undisputably the deceased not only owned his own truck, he was also himself driving it. The deceased would thus earn sizable income not only through transportation business, he would also save money in hiring a driver for driving the vehicle since he himself was driving his goods transport vehicle. It may be that the truck was purchased through bank loan, nevertheless, the transport business would certainly earn considerable income for the deceased, particularly, when he himself was driving the vehicle. We may notice that the truck was purchased only in the year 2002 and that therefore, it was a fairly new vehicle when unfortunately was involved in accident of 25.4.2003. In that view of the matter, the computation of the Tribunal of the current income of the deceased on the date of accident at Rs.3500/, if at all, is on conservative side. The Tribunal thereafter, did not make any provision for future increase in the income relying on decision in case of Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, primarily, on the ground that deceased was self employed and in absence of any special circumstances, no such increase should be granted.
7. In facts of the present case, however, we are of the opinion that reasonable increase providing for future increase should have been granted. The deceased was not only engaged in transport business through his own truck, he himself was driving the vehicle regularly. The Tribunal having accepted sum of Rs.3500/ per month through such dual activity ought to have also appreciated that with passage of time and rapid devaluation of money, deceased was expected to earn higher profits from such engagement. Particularly, when the deceased was looking after his own truck and driving it also, his transport business would be expected to be more profitable than those who would be running such vehicles through hired driver. We cannot lose sight of of the fact that even to hire a driver particularly, for heavy vehicles for the purpose of goods transport, considerable salary is required to be paid in addition to which the hirer would have to pay for daily allowances for such driver. All these amounts deceased would have saved for himself.
8. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that as was done in case of Sarla Varma (supra) and as is being consistently followed by this Court, a reasonable increase in current income of the deceased ought to have been projected.
9. In the result, by adopting the current income of deceased on the date of accident at Rs.3500/, expecting future increase and adopting a sum one and half times with much uniformity for the purpose of awarding compensation to the deceased,his income would come to Rs.63,000/ per annum. Deducting 1/4th thereof i.e. Rs.15,750/,rounded off to Rs.16,000/, for the personal expenditure of deceased himself, it would leave sum of Rs.47,000/ per annum as dependency benefit for the heirs and dependents of the deceased. Multiplying this sum by multiplier of 15, would come to Rs.7,05,000/ towards dependency benefit. We are however, of the opinion that amount of Rs.10,000/ awarded towards loss of consortium should be revised to Rs.20,000/ as is the current standard adopted in various judgements with which amount of Rs.5000/ towards love and affection would merge. Further sum of Rs.5000/ awarded towards loss of estate also should be revised to Rs.25,000/ as is the current trend. Rest of amounts remain unchanged. In the net result, claimants shall receive compensation as under :
Rs.7,05,000/ towards dependency benefits Rs.20,000/ towards loss of consortium Rs.25,000/ towards loss of estate Rs.5000/ towards transportation and funeral expenses.
Rs.7,55,000/ total compensation
10. In other words, the appellants shall receive additional compensation of Rs.2,57,500/. Such amount shall be paid along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till actual payment.
11. Out of the additional amount that the insurance company shall deposit under this order, 75% shall be deposited in fixed deposit for a period of five years in any nationalized bank and shall not be permitted to be prematurely withdrawn by the claimants. Remaining 25% be paid over to the claimants through Account Payee cheque after due verification.
12. This appeal is allowed in part and disposed of accordingly.
(Akil Kureshi,J.) (C.L. Soni,J.) (raghu)