1. By way of this appeal, the appellant- Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and award dated 15.10.2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Fast Track Court No.5, Bharuch in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.374 of 2000, whereby the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.2,55,400/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the amount is deposited in the Tribunal with proportionate costs to the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, on account of a vehicular accident which took place on 23.12.1999, one Mr.Yunus Ibrahim Delawala lost his life. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5, herein, being the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased preferred the aforesaid claim petition, wherein the tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present appeal.
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 hereinabove, against which present appeal is preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal has not properly considered the evidence produced on record. He further submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2009(6) SCC, 121, the tribunal has committed an error in awarding the future income of the appellant.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record as well as the judgment and award of the tribunal. In my view, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of deceased at Rs.1,800/-. The Tribunal ought to have considered principle laid down in the case of Sarla Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. (supra). The Tribunal had deducted 1/3 amount towards personal expenses of the deceased but as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. (Supra). The Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that Claimant No.3 was the brother of the deceased and therefore he was not entitled for the compensation. Moreover, Claimant Nos.1 and 2 were the parents of the deceased and therefore 1/2 deduction ought to have been made. Hence, applying the ratio, monthly dependency comes to Rs.900 (1800 x 1/2 =900) and accordingly annual dependency comes to Rs.10,800/-. In case where the applicant are parents, their age is looked into for adopting multiplier. In the present case, the applicant were aged about 55 years and therefore multiplier of 11 is deducted. Hence, total amount of dependency would come to Rs.1,18,800/-. Further, the claimants are entitled for Rs.10,000/- under the loss to estate and Rs.5,000/- under the head of funeral expenses in all. The appellants are entitled for Rs.1,33,800/- for compensation. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,55,400/- as compensation. Therefore, excess amount of Rs.1,21,600/- are required to be refunded to the appellant Insurance Company.
6. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- for pain, shock and suffering. In my view Rs.10,000/- for loss to estate and Rs.5,000/-for funeral expenses should be awarded.
7. Thus, in all the appellants are entitled for Rs.1,33,800/-[Rs.1,18,800/-(dependency) + Rs.10,000/- (loss to estate)+ Rs.5,000/- (Funeral expenses)].
8. In the premises, the excess amount of Rs.1,21,600/- will be paid back with interest at the rate of 9% to the 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 at the rate of 9% to the Insurance Company. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J) mehul