1. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 09.08.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kachchh- Bhuj in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 167 of 1993 so far as the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,24,000/- by way of compensation to the original claimants along with 9% interest.
2. It is the case of the claimants that on 28.12.1992 accident took place between two trucks bearing registration nos. GQY 4236 & GTJ 6216 in which cleaner of truck no. GQY 4236 died. The claimants being legal heirs and representatives of the deceased therefore filed claim petition for compensation. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Mr. Nair, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in quantifying the award at Rs.2,24,000/- . He submitted that it is significant to note that the mother of the deceased filed Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 167/93 claiming compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs wherein her age is stated to be 45 yrs and in another Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 421/93 filed by her and the younger brother of the deceased her age is said to be 60 yrs which was later on withdrawn. He submitted that the income of the deceased in both the claim petitions are also different. He submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the claimant no. 2 was not dependent on the deceased being the elder brother. He submitted that the income of the deceased is taken on the higher side and the multiplier adopted is also on higher side considering the age of the mother.
4. Mr. Vora, learned advocate appearing for the respondent supported the impugned award and submitted that the award having been passed after considering the evidence in detail does not call for any interference by this Court. He, however, could not controvert the issue of age of the mother in two claim petitions.
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 drivers of both the trucks. 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. Moreover, considering the disparities in two claim petitions filed by the claimants themselves, this Court thinks it fit to assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1500/-. Accordingly, the prospective income comes to Rs. 2250/- per month and Rs. 27000/- per annum.
6. Deducting ½ from the total income for personal expenses in view of the fact that only the mother in the present case can be considered as dependent and not the elder brother, the amount dependency loss per annum shall come to Rs. 13500/-. The multiplier of 17 adopted in the present case is on higher side considering the age of mother which is 60 years. In view of the fact that the age of the elder brother is stated to be 40 years the age of mother cannot be said to be 45 yrs. Multiplier of 9 shall be just and proper and accordingly the future dependency loss shall come to Rs. 1,21,500/-. Against this, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,04,000/- which is excessive.
7. As regards the rest of the award under various heads, Rs. 15000/- is required to be awarded under conventional expenses instead of Rs. 20000/-. Therefore the claimants are in all entitled to Rs. 1,36,500/- as compensation (Rs. 1,21,500 for future loss of income + Rs. 15000 under various heads). Therefore amount of Rs. 87,500/- is awarded in excess to the claimants.
8. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled to only Rs. 1,36,500/- by way of total compensation. The balance amount of Rs. 87,500/- along with proportionate interest 9% shall be refunded to the insurance company. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//