1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 11.10.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( Aux.), 2nd Fast Track Court, Jamnagar in Motor Accident Claim Case No.20 of 2006 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6, 09,000/ with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realization.
2.0 On 24.12.2005 at about 7.00 A.M., when one Hitesh Babubhai Bhatt along with luggage was going from Rajkot to Lalpur in Rickshaw No. GJ1XX1439 on Dhrol Rajkot highway near Aahir Kanya Hostel, one Fiat Car No. R. J. 27C9982 driven with rash and negligent manner dashed with him because of which he sustained injuries and died on the spot. The wife of the deceased therefore, filed aforesaid claim case claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 7,00, 000/. The Tribunal by judgment and award dated 31.01.1991 awarded a sum of Rs. 6.09.000/.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assuming the income of the deceased @ Rs. 3500/ in absence of any evidence of income and further erred in considering the future income as per formula adopted by this Hon'ble Court; that when source of actual income is not proved then Tribunal ought not to have considered prospective income of Rs. 5250/ per month; that the Tribunal has erred in awarding amount of Rs. 40,000/ on assumption for damage to the rickshaw in spite of the fact the rickshaw was not in the ownership of the claimant.
4.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant has relied upon a decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, more particularly in para 24 thereof.
“24. In Susamma Thomas this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7% . In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. ( Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words “actual salary” should be read as “actual salary less tax”). The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardstick being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was selfemployed or was on a fixed salary ( without provision for annual increments, etc.). the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.”
5.0 As a result of hearing and perusal of the record, I am of the view that the prospective income should have been taken at the rate of 30%. Looking to the fact that the deceased was doing driving as well as agricultural work, the income of Rs.3500/ is just and proper in view of the evidence on record. 30% of Rs.3500/ would come to Rs.1050/. Thus the total income to be taken is Rs.4550/ ( Rs. 3500/ + Rs. 1050/). Out of this, one third is required to be deducted towards personal expenses, which would come to Rs. 1500/. Therefore, the figure would come to Rs.3050/( Rs. 4550/ Rs. 1500/) and the annual income would be Rs.36600/ ( Rs. 3050 x 12). The age of the deceased was 46 years and therefore as per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others (supra), a multiplier of 13 would be just and proper. By applying the multiplier of 13, the total amount would come to Rs.4,75,800/. Further, on the facts of the case the award of Rs.3000/ towards funeral expenses is on lower side and it should have been Rs.5000/. It is accordingly decided. On the facts and circumstances of the case the amount of Rs.20,000/ awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering is also just and proper.
6.0 As regards the award of Rs.40,000/ towards damage to the rickshaw of the deceased is concerned, the deceased was the owner of the vehicle and therefore the Tribunal has rightly awarded the said sum towards the damage to the rickshaw. No interference is warranted.
7.0 In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. It is held that the claimant is entitled to a total sum of Rs.5,40,800/ along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The award is modified accordingly. It is, however, observed that balance amount if lying before the Tribunal, it will be open to the Insurance Company to withdraw the same. No costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru