[1] By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 26.09.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Jamnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.292 of 2006 whereby the Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.6,16,640/-.
[2] The brief facts of the case are that on 26.04.2006, the deceased Ramjibhai Babubhai Panjariwala was walking near Navy Gate, Jamnagar, at about 11.30 a.m. At that time, the driver of the original opponent No.1's rickshaw bearing No.GJ-10-W-17 came in rash and negligence manner and knocked down Ramjibhai Babubhai Panjariwala who sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same. A criminal complaint was lodged with Okha Police Station against the driver of the rickshaw. The claimants being legal heirs of the deceased have filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No.292/2006, claiming compensation in the sum of Rs.9,00,000/- under different heads. The learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and directed both the opponents to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.6,16,640/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The appellant has challenged the awarded amount of Rs.1,92,000/- being the part of the award on account of prospective income.
[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in considering Rs.4,500/- as prospective income of the deceased without any proof. He submitted that the deceased was not on a permanent job and had no salary income with annual increment and that the deceased was self employed labourer. Hence, the question of prospective income does not arise. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and has submitted that the Tribunal erred in going beyond the actual income at the time of the death of the deceased without giving cogent reason to show that the case was rare and exceptional involving special circumstances. He submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of filing petition till realization. He, therefore, urged that the judgment and award of the Tribunal be quashed and set aside and appeal be allowed.
[4] Having heard learned counsel and considering the averments made in the appeal and perusal of the record, it appears that on 6th March, 2012, 12th March, 2012 and 26th March, 2012, learned counsel for the appellant has pressed for time to place on record the evidence of the claimants, but he failed to produce the same. The Tribunal has observed in para-3 of the judgment as under :-
“It is also the case of the petitioners that the deceased was aged about 40 years at the relevant point of time and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing loading – unloading labour work at the port. On account of his untimely death the petitioners are deprived of his income and have suffered great mental shock. Therefore, the petitioners have claimed Rs.9 Lacs from both the opponents as compensation for the loss of dependency, loss of expectation of life, consortium, funeral expenses, medical expenses, pain, shock and suffering etc.”
[5] In that view of the matter, regarding the income, the tribunal has assessed notional income of Rs.2,400 p.m., and the prospective income was assessed Rs.4,500/- p.m., which are just and proper. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the csae the Tribunal has rightly deducted 2/3rd of the monthly income which would come to Rs.3,000/- and yearly dependency would come to Rs.36,000/-. The Tribunal has considered multiplier of 16 for capitalizing the loss of dependency, which cannot be said to be unreasonable. The tribunal has considered yearly dependency of Rs.36,000/- and by applying multiplier of 16 it would come to Rs.5,76,000/- as dependency loss. The tribunal has also granted Rs.10,000/- as loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.5,460/- for transportation and medical treatment. The Tribunal has also observed that the deceased survived for 15 days before succumbed to his injuries, and, therefore, the claimants claim of Rs.15,000/- under the heads of pain, shock and suffering and attendant charges. The Tribunal has considered Rs.10,000/- under as pain, shock and suffering and attendant charges. In my view, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.6,16,640/- is just and proper and no interference is required to be called for.
[6] Under the circumstances, the present appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
[ K. S. JHAVERI, J. ] vijay