1 By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant – insurance company has challenged the judgment and order dated 12th August 2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Vadodara in MAC Petition No.665 of 1993 whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition.
2 The short facts of the present appeal as per the claimants are that on 27th January 1993 at about 12.30 PM while deceased – Devangini, aged about 10 years was standing on the left hand side of the kachcha road, she was hit by the original opponent No.1, who was driving Toyota vehicle. In the said accident deceased received serious injuries and later on succumbed to the injuries.
3. The parents of the deceased therefore filed claim petition. The Tribunal has considered the notional income of the child at Rs.5,000 per month and deducted 1/3rd therefrom and assessed the annual dependency at Rs.20,040. He adopted the multiplier of 15 and thereby awarded Rs.3,00,060 as the future loss of income. The applicants are entitled to Rs.20,000 under the head of expectation of life and Rs.2,000 towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,22,600 to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum against which the present appeal is filed by the insurance company.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the insurance company has, inter-alia, submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the notional income at Rs.5,000 per month and in assessing the annual dependency at Rs.20,040. He submitted that considering the notional income of Rs.15,000, then the parents are entitled to get 50% of the same I.e. Rs.7,500. The multiplier should be 15. Therefore, the claimants are at the most entitled to Rs.122,000 plus conventional amount of Rs.4,500/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,27,500/-.
6. Mr Hakim, learned counsel for the respondent even if Rs.15,000 is considered as notional income, then there should be addition on the ground of future economic prospects.
7. In the present case, the accident has taken place in the year 1993 whereas the notional income of Rs.15,000 was fixed by the Apex Court in the year 1995. There is a gap of 22 months. Technically, it should be reduced to 20%, but keeping in mind that a small child has lost her life 10% reduction is adopted. Thus, the notional income would come to Rs.13,500/- . There should be addition of 50% of the same towards future economic prospects. Therefore, the same would come to Rs.20,250 per annum. Out of the same, the parents are entitled to get half of the same. Thus, the future economic loss or loss of dependency is Rs.10,125 per annum. If the multiplier of 15 is adopted, then it would come to Rs.1,51,875/-. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.15,000 under the head of conventional amount. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,66,875/-. As against that, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,22,600/- to the claimants. Thus, there is an excess amount of Rs.1,55,725 which is required to be refunded to the insurance company along with interest.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the judgment and order of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd