1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Main), Jamnagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.423 of 1995, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,93,000/- to original claimant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the application till its realization and proportionate cost.
2. The facts of the case is that on 07.03.1995, the deceased was going as a pillion rider on Hero Majestic motor cycle and at that time, one truck driven by original opponent No.1 dashed with the motor cycle. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. Therefore, the original claimants filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Main), Jamnagar 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 has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1500/-, instead of Rs.3,000/- as the documentary evidence was also produced before the Tribunal. He has further contended that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/6 amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, instead of 1/3 amount.
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, the Tribunal, after considering the FIR at Exh.28, Panchanama Exh.29 and oral evidence of Ashabha Gangadharbha at Exh.34, who was an eye- witness to the accident, 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 quantum is concerned, one Jayesh Gadhvi was examined at Exh.31, who has stated that deceased was working as a mechanic in Somnath Transport. He has also produced record entry of pay register at Exh.33. However, the Tribunal has not considered aforesaid evidence and assessed monthly income at Rs.1,500/-. In my view, the Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence and the Tribunal ought to have assessed monthly income at Rs.3,000/-.
9. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal ought to have considered 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, ¼ amount should have been deducted. Hence, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.2,250/- and accordingly, annual dependency comes to Rs.27,000/-. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 15, which in my view, is just and proper. Hence, total amount of dependency comes to Rs.4,05,000/-.
10. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- for the loss to estate and consortium. In my view, the appellants-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.4,30,000/- [Rs.4,05,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5,000/-]. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,93,000/-, therefore, the additional amount of Rs.2,37,000/- is required to be paid to the appellants-original claimants.
11. In that view of the matter, the appellant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.2,37,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of application till realization. Rest of the award stands unaltered.
12. The appeal is partly allowed. Decree be drawn accordingly.
..mitesh..
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.]