1. By way of this appeal, the appellants- original claimants have challenged the judgement and award dated 31.03.2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Auxiliary), Kutch-Bhuj, in M.A.C.P. No.252 of 1994, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.2,05,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 9.1.1984 an vehicular accident occurred and in the said accident one Harju Lakha Gadhvi, expired Therefore, the legal heir of the deceased filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.66 of 1998(old M.A.C.P. No.387 of 1990). The Tribunal after hearing learned advocates for the respective parties and after considering the evidence on record and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellants-original claimants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4500/-. He further contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in adopting the multiplier of 5, it should 7. Therefore, he prayed to allow this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contentions of learned advocate for the appellant and contended that the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has passed the impugned award, 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 assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4500/- without any documentary evidence. I am of the view, the Tribunal ought not to have assessed the annual income of the deceased more than Rs.3000/-. Out of the said amount 1/3 amount required to be deducted towards personal expenses which would have been spent by the deceased on himself. After deducting 1/3 amount, monthly dependency comes to Rs.20,000/-.The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on lower side, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Dixit and Another Vs. Balwant Yadav and Another reported in (1996) 3 SCC 179, it should be 7. If multiplier of 7 is adopted, the dependency comes to Rs.1,40,000/-.
6. The claimant is also entitled to Rs.10,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering, Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- under the head of funeral expenses, Rs.3000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.1000/- towards transportation. Thus, in all the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,69,000/- whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,05,000/- Therefore, the excess amount of Rs.36,000/- 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.
7. 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.]