1. By way of this appeal, the present appellant-original opponent No.3 has challenged the judgement and award dated 16th November, 2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Auxi.), Fast Track Court, Surendranagar, in M.A.C.P. No.289 of 1996, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.4,64,000/- to the claimant with interest at the rate of 9 per annum from the date of filing of application till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that in a vehicular accident one Anjuman, aged about 6 years, expired. Therefore, the father of the deceased filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No. 289 of 1996 before the Tribunal for compensation. The Tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petitions and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation to the appellant under the head of future economic loss, pain shock and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of marriage prospects. He further submitted the tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. He therefore, prayed to allow this appeal.
4. Learned Advocate for the respondents has submitted that the tribunal after considering the evidence on record has awarded the compensation, therefore, he prayed to dismiss the present appeal.
5. I have heard learned advocates for both the parties and perused the material on record. From the record it is clear that the tribunal has committed error in awarding compensation to the claimant under several heads. I find that the the Tribunal has committed error in adopting the multiplier of 15. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009(6) SCC 121, the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 18, as at the time of the accident the age of the father of the deceased was about 23 years. If the multiplier of 18 is adopted the amount under the head of future economic loss comes to Rs.2,70,000/-[Rs.15,000/- x 18 ], whereas the Tribunal has only awarded Rs.2,25,000/- under the said head.
6. I also find that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs.75,000/- under the head of pain shock and suffering and Rs.75,000/- under the head of loss of amenities of life and Rs.50,000/- under the head of loss of marriage prospects. Considering the fact of the case, I am of the view that if Rs.25,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering, Rs.25,000/- under the head of loss of amenities of life and Rs.25,000/- under the head of loss of marriage prospects are granted the same, the same would met ends of justice.
7. Thus, in all the claimant is entitled to Rs. 3,84,000/- [Rs.2,70,000/- under the head of future economic loss + Rs. 25,000/- under the head of pain shock and suffering + Rs.25,000/- under the head of loss of amenities of life + Rs.25,000/- under the head of loss of marriage prospects + Rs.10,000/- under the head of Medical expenses + Rs.9000/- under the head of actual loss of salary + Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and Rs.10,000/- under the head of special diet], whereas the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,64,000/-. Therefore, the excess amount of Rs.80,000/- is required to be refunded to the Insurance Company with interest and cost, if any, if the same is deposited by the appellant with the tribunal.
8. The judgement and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. Decree be drawn accordingly. The present appeal is partly allowed.
pawan
[K.S.JHAVERI,J.]