1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 22.11.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Rajkot in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.314 of 1995, whereby, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,00,000/- by way of compensation with running interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment from the original opponents jointly and/ or severally. The original opponent No.3-Oriental Insurance Company challenged the judgment and award by preferring this appeal before this Court. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are widow, minor son and parents of the deceased, respondent No.5 happens to be a driver of the offending vehicle and respondent No.6 happens to be the owner of the offending vehicle.
2. According to the case of the claimants, the vehicular accident occurred on 26.10.2004 and in the said accident, the deceased succumbed to the injuries and died. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 37 years and he was earning Rs.1,25,000/- p.a. in a business of transportation and travels. The claimants, therefore, preferred afore mentioned claim petition to obtain compensation of 16,00,000/- from the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle.
3. The appellant-original opponent No.3 resisted claim of the claimants by filing written statement, whereby, inter-alia averments made in the claim petition were generally denied.
4. Before the Tribunal, oral and documentary evidence was adduced and after hearing the submissions advanced by both the sides, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the claimants were successful in proving that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 37 years and was doing a business of transportation and travels and his personal actual income was assessed at Rs.48,000/- p.a. The Tribunal assessed prospective income at Rs.72,000/- p.a. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 years. The Tribunal further concluded that the deceased left widow, minor child and parents and the family of the deceased including himself consisted of 5 members and therefore, deducted 1/4th share from the said average future prospective income. The Tribunal, therefore, came to conclusion that after deducting personal expenses of the deceased, the loss to the dependency benefits to the claimants would be Rs.54,000/- and applying the multiplier of 16, the claimants were entitled to recover Rs.8,64,000/- under the head of loss to the future dependency benefits. The Tribunal, thereafter in the impugned judgment awarded compensation under other heads. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.10 Lacs.
5. Mr.Meena, learned advocate for the appellant- Insurance Company at the out set submitted that the Tribunal committed serious error while applying the multiplier of 16 years, when the deceased was aged about the 37 year. He further submitted that one of the claimants being father cannnot be considered as dependent on the income of the deceased, therefore, instead of deducting 1/4th amount towards self expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal should have deducted 1/3rd amount. Learned advocate Mr.Meena for the Insurance Company further submitted that Rs.95,000/- is awarded by way of compensation to the claimants under the head of conventional allowance is much on higher side. In support of above submission, learned advocate Mr.Meena has relied upon the case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009(6) SCC 121.
6. Mr.D.R.Ravaiya, learned advocate for the respondent-claimants at the out set supported the judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in adopting the multiplier of 16 years, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma's Case (Supra). He has further submitted that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in deducting 1/4th share towards personal expenses of the deceased. He has submitted that so far as the loss to the conventional amount is concerned, the Tribunal relied upon the various decisions and considered that the claimants are entitled for Rs.95,000/- under this heads. He has further submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.
7. I have taken into consideration, the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides. As stated above on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company, the contentions raised at the time of arguments are regarding the multiplier, deduction of self expenses of the deceased and regarding conventional amount and except that no more contention is raised, therefore, there is no reason for this Court to discuss other aspect of the matter arising out of the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal.
8. So far as the multiplier is concerned, as stated above, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 16 years. There is no dispute that the deceased was aged about 37 years when he died in the accident. Considering the discussion made by Apex Court in Page No.24 in Sarla Verma's Case (Supra), it can safely be said in the instant case that appropriate multiplier is 15 and not that of 16. The Tribunal considered Rs.54,000/- as annual loss to the further dependency benefit and applied the multiplier of 16 and came to conclusion that claimants were entitled for Rs.8,64,000/- towards loss to the future dependency benefits. In above view of the matter, the Tribunal should have adopted the multiplier of 15 years and accordingly, this Court is of the view that the applying the said multiplier, the Tribunal should have awarded Rs.8,10,000/- (54,000 X 15) under the head of loss of further dependency benefit.
9. Coming back to the issue of appropriate deduction towards self expenses of the deceased, learned advocate Mr.Meena contended that the father cannot be said to be a dependent. To substantiate his submission, the reliance was placed on Paragraph No.30, 31 and 32 in Sarla Verma's Case (Supra). However, even considering the discussion made in Sarla Verma's Case (Supra) and considering the impugned judgment rendered by the Tribunal, it may not be said that the Tribunal committed any error, while coming to conclusion that in the instant case 1/4th share of the deceased requires to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Under such circumstances, there does not appear any justification to coming to conclusion that the Tribunal should have deducted 1/3rd share of the deceased towards personal expenses.
10. Third point, which has been raised by the learned advocate Mr.Meena for the appellant-Insurance Company is pertaining to the grant of conventional amount by the Tribunal to the claimants. The Tribunal in Paragraph No.15 in its judgment, considering various decisions and came to conclusion that the claimants were entitled to recover Rs.95,000/- under this head. Mr.Meena, learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company relied upon the discussion by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's Case (Supra), more particularly observations made by the Apex Court regarding conventional amount, which reads as under:-
“Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/ to Rs.10,000/ may be added as loss of estate. where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/ to Rs.10,000/ should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added”
11. In above view of the matter, the Tribunal should have awarded Rs.20,000/- in all under this head.
12. Mr.Ravaiya, learned advocate for the respondent- claimants strongly submitted that the Tribunal did not committed any error while awarding Rs.95,000/- under this head and he relied upon the case of R.K.Malik Vs. Kiran Pal reported in AIR 2009 SC 2506 and submitted that in that case, Apex Court confirmed the order of High Court, granting Rs.75,000/- under the head of non-
pecuniary damages and further submitted that in the instant case, at least Rs.75,000/- may be considered to be just and appropriate amount under the head of conventional amount. I have taken into consideration the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in case of R.K.Malik's Case (Supra). It clearly transpires that in the said decision the lumpsum amount of Rs.75,000/- came to be awarded considering the peculiar facts and circumstances emerged in the said case. However, as discussed above, considering the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma's case (Supra), the Tribunal should have granted Rs.20,000/- under the aforesaid head and not Rs.95,000/-. Thus, under this head excess amount of Rs.75,000/-, which was granted by the Tribunal is required to be deducted.
13. Seen in the above context, this Court come to conclusion that Rs.1,29,000/- can be said to be excessive amount, which the Tribunal awarded to the original claimants (Rs.54,000/- by way of extra multiplier and Rs.75,000/- under the head of loss to the conventional amount). The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,00,000/- and therefore, deducting Rs.1,29,000/-, the only amount which respondent- claimants by way of compensation would be entitled is Rs.8,71,000/-. The instant appeal, therefore, deserves to be partly allowed.
14. The appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 22.11.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Rajkot in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.314 of 1995 is partly interfered with and instead of Rs.10 Lacs, it is hereby ordered that the original claimants (respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein) are entitled to recover Rs.8,71,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Seventy One Thousand only) by way of compensation from the original opponents (appellant and respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein) jointly and/ or severally. The remaining direction given by the concerned Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award about running interest, proportionate costs and disbursment of the amount of compensation is not disturbed and shall remain intact, except that the calculation shall be now made in context with the principal amount of compensation being Rs.8,71,000/-. No order for costs in the appeal.
..mitesh..
[J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.]