1. Admit.
2. Heard Mr.Modi, learned advocate for the appellants – original claimants and Mr.Thakker, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 – insurance co. Both the learned counsel representing the appellants and the respondent No.2 – insurance co. submitted that considering the contentions raised in the appeal by the appellants, the appeal may be taken upon for final hearing. They further submitted that considering the grounds raised in the appeal by the appellants, the presence of respondent No.1 (original opponent No.1) may not be required, as the respondent No.2 – insurance co. does not dispute its liability and the appeal is for enhancement of amount of compensation. Accordingly, as requested by learned counsel representing the appellants and the respondent No.2, the appeal is heard and is being disposed of today.
3. The challenge in this appeal is to the impugned judgment and award rendered by MAC Tribunal (Aux.), Court No.16, Ahmedabad on 11.2.2011 in MACP No.98 of 2002 whereby the Tribunal directed both the respondents herein, who were opponents in the aforementioned claim petition to pay Rs.540600/- by way of compensation with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization and with proportionate cost thereon to the appellants – original claimants herein.
4. Mr.Modi, learned advocate for the appellants – claimants, at the outset, submitted that though the Tribunal assessed actual income to the deceased at Rs.6800/- p.m., and the Tribunal observed that at the relevant time, the deceased was aged about 22 years, but while awarding compensation under the head of loss to the future dependency benefits, the Tribunal did not consider the future prospective income of the deceased. Mr.Modi submitted that when the actual income of the
Rs.3400/-). Mr.Modi, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that despite the fact that the deceased was aged about 22 years, but the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 12 years. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal may be allowed and appropriate enhancement in the amount of compensation may be granted.
5. Heard Mr.Thakker, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 – insurance co. He submitted that no interference by this Court is warranted in impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal.
6. Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, it becomes clear that the disputes raised in this appeal is in a very narrow compass. Perusing the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal and more particularly the discussion made by the Tribunal in paragraph 13, it transpires that the Tribunal took into consideration the nature of profession of the deceased of the deceased and his academic qualification and the evidence regarding his income to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs.4000/- p.m. from Shrinath Travels as well as Rs.2800/- p.m. from Wex Chem and thus in all he was earning Rs.6800/- p.m. However, while awarding the compensation under the head of loss to the future dependency benefits, the Tribunal did not consider the future prospective income of the deceased. However, considering the age of the deceased at the time of the accident and considering the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs.Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 as well as the case of Santosh Devi Vs.National Insurance Co.Ltd. reported in (2012)6 SCC 421, this Court is the opinion that the Tribunal should have considered future prospective income of the deceased while calculating the amount of compensation under the head of loss to the future dependency benefits. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal should have considered atleast Rs.10200/- p.m. (Rs.6400 + Rs.3400/-). The Tribunal deducted 50% amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased and it transpires that the Tribunal did not commit any error. Therefore, deducting 50% amount out of the future prospective income at Rs.10200/- p.m., it can safely be said that monthly loss to future dependency benefits comes to Rs.5100/- and the annual loss comes to Rs.61200/-. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 12 years and this Court is of the opinion that considering the age of the parents, the Tribunal did not commit any error while applying said multiplier. Therefore, the Tribunal should have awarded Rs.734400/- (Rs.61200x12) under the head of loss to the future dependency benefits. The Tribunal awarded Rs.489600/- under the head. Therefore, the appellants – claimants are entitled to get Rs.244800/- by way of additional amount of compensation. The instant appeal, therefore, accordingly deserves to be partly allowed. However, the Tribunal awarded interest @ 8% p.a., but it would be just and reasonable, if the interest on the additional amount of compensation is awarded @ 7.5% p.a.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed and impugned judgment and award dated 11.2.2011 rendered by learned MAC Tribunal (Aux.), Court No.16, Ahmedabad in MACP No.918 of 2002 is hereby modified and it is hereby directed that the appellants are entitled to recover by way of additional amount of compensation Rs.244800/- (Rupees Two Lac Forty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the filing of the original claim petition till realization with proportionate cost thereon from the respondents herein.
8. Mr.Thakker, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 – insurance co., upon instructions, states that the insurance co. shall deposit the above amount of compensation preferably within two months. After the amount shall be deposited with the concerned Tribunal, the Tribunal shall disburse said amount in terms of impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal. No costs.
(binoy) (J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.)