1. The appellants herein have challenged the award dated 06.11.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 357 of 1995 so far as the Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,34,000/- by way of compensation to the original claimants along with 15% interest.
2. It is the case of the appellants that on 08.06.1995 while the deceased was travelling riding a bicycle, a fire fighter ambulance bearing registration no. GJ- 4- T 5416 driven by the original opponent no. 2 in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit the cyclist as a result of which the deceased was thrown off the bicycle and sustained serious injuries. He succumbed to those injuries. The claimants being legal heirs and representatives of the deceased therefore filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,50,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Mr. K.K. Nair, learned advocate appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal erred in quantifying the award at Rs. 3,34,000/- . He submitted that the dependency loss of Rs. 3,08,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and therefore the same is required to be reduced. He also submitted that the Tribunal erred in considering the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3500/- in absence of any cogent evidence on record.
4. Though served none appears for the claimants.
5. The Tribunal has gone into the evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the accident in question happened because of the negligence of the driver of the fire fighting ambulance. However, the income assessed by the Tribunal seems to be on a higher side. No concrete evidence is produced on record to substantiate the claim of the claimants as far as income is concerned. The Tribunal has observed that there is no documentary evidence on record to show the actual income and inspite of the said fact the Tribunal ought not to have assessed the income at Rs. 3,500/- on mere pleadings. In such an event, assessment of income at Rs. 2000/- per month would have been just and proper.
5.1 Considering the age of the deceased which was 45 at the time of accident, 30% of the income is required to be added for calculating the prospective income. Therefore the prospective income per month comes to Rs. 2600/-.
6. Therefore considering the dependents to be three in number, in view of the decision in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 1/3 is required to be deducted. Deducting 1/3rd from the total income for personal expenses, the amount of dependency loss per month shall come to Rs. 1733/- and Rs. 20,796/- per annum. The multiplier of 11 adopted in the present case is just and proper and accordingly the future dependency loss shall come to Rs. 2,28,756/-. Against this, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,08,000/- which is excessive.
7. The Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs. 5000/- by way of funeral expenses to the claimants. As regards the rest of the award under various heads is just and proper and no interference is required. Therefore the claimants are in all entitled to Rs. 2,59,756/- as compensation (Rs. 2,28,756 for future loss of income + Rs. 5000 for funeral expenses + Rs. 20000 for loss of estate and consortium and Rs. 6000 for medical expenses).
8. The interest of 15% imposed by the Tribunal is on a higher side. This court is of the view that interest of 12% ought to have been imposed by the Tribunal. The award is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent.
9. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled to only Rs. 2,59,756/- by way of total compensation. The balance amount shall be refunded to the appellant insurance company. The appellant shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% instead of 15% from the date of claim petition till realisation. The amount deposited by the appellants qua 3% interest shall be refunded. The balance amount along with proportionate interest shall be refunded to the appellants. The proportionate amount in FDR shall be paid to the claimants. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//