1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") arises out of judgment and award dated 15th June, 1995 passed by learned MACT (Auxiliary-I) Kachchh at Bhuj in MACP No. 15 of 1987.
2. Short facts, for which, the claim petition was filed are as under:
The applicant-Hira Thaward Harijan resident of village Mota Salaya, Taluka: Mandvi-Kachchh, on 6.9.1986 was going from Mamlatdar office Mandvi to Salaya. He was going on the extreme left hand side of the road. That, around 12.30 hours, he had reached little away from the Mamlatdar office on Mandvi Bhuj Road. At that time, opponent NO.1 came from opposite direction with his scooter No. G S L 3380. The said scooter belongs to opponent No. 2 and opponent No.4. The opponent No.1 was riding the scooter with the consent, permission and for the work of opponent Nos. 2 and 4. He was riding the aforesaid scooter rashly, recklessly, negligently without observing the rules of the road and without caring for the safety of the users of the road. He lost control over the steering. He suddenly came on the wrong side of the road and dashed his scooter with the applicant-deceased. The deceased was thrown out and sustained serious injuries and died due to injuries.
3. Against the claim of Rs. 77,000/- with 18% interest p.a. and after considering objections raised by the Insurance Company, finally Rs. 75,000/- awarded with simple interest of 15% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realisation.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that the death of the deceased Hira Thaward Harijan was not due to alleged accident and further consideration of income by the Tribunal was not based on any material on record produced and that original opponent No.1 was not riding scooter with the consent and permission of opponent Nos. 2 to 4.
4.1. According to learned advocate for the Insurance Company applicability of multiplier of 15 to the deceased aged 55 years, who was a labourer on the assessment that he would have lived upto 70 years was based on no material and even rate of interest of 15% was excessive and contrary to law of award of compensation prevailing at relevant point of time. In respect of above submissions, learned advocate for the Insurance Company relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kaushnuma Begum and Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [2001 ACJ 428] and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vithabhai & Ors. [AIR 2011 SC 2838].
4.2. In view of the above, it is submitted that both the above aspects namely, applicability of multiplier of 15 and rate of interest of 15% deserve to be considered in this appeal by modifying the judgment and award of the Claim Tribunal accordingly.
5. Per contra, learned advocate for the claimants however would submit that on the basis of material on record and after considering the nature of duties discharged by the deceased labourer and upon verifying certificate of salary issued by the employer, the monthly income was determined and therefore, in absence of error by the Claims Tribunal in this regard no interference is necessary by this Court. AT the same time it is submitted that considering the acceptance of life of an ordinary human being the Tribunal had applied multiplier of 15 and even rate of interest is also reasonable. In view of decision of this Court in the case of Manjo Rambhai Gadhvi v. Vaghasia Balubhai Khodabhai & Ors. {2000 (3) GLR 1985], where division bench of this Court confirmed award of interest @ 15% till 30th June, 1997 and for subsequent period interest @ 12 % as appropriate rate of interest.
6. Considering the overall submissions, perusal of the record and judgment impugned of the Claim Tribunal, I am of the view that in appreciating the income of the deceased based on salary certificate issued by the employer, the Tribunal has not committed any error and further award of compensation on various other heads by the Tribunal was reasonable. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121], the applicability of multiplier of 15 to the deceased aged 55 was certainly on higher side and the reasonable multiplier of 11 could have been applied and thus, when the accident had taken place on 6.9.1986 and the claim petition is decided in June, 1995 and the appeal has reached at the stage of final hearing before this Court in June, 2012, I deem it just and proper to pass following order.
6.1. The appeal is partly allowed. The award is modified to the effect that instead of multiplier of 15 applied by the Tribunal, multiplier will be 11. So far as the rate of interest is concerned it shall be 15% p.a. upto the date of passing the impugned award i.e. 1st June, 1995 and thereafter at the rate of 12% p.a. Insurance Company shall be entitled to refund with interest of the difference of the amount as per the award modified as above. However, if the entire amount is already withdrawn by the claimant the Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the same from the insured. If the amount deposited under Section 173 of M.V. Act by the appellant if not already transmitted to the Tribunal the Registry shall transmit the same.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
[ANANT S. DAVE, J.] //smita// Top