1. This appeal has been preferred against original opponent no. 2, in the common judgment and award dated 02.07.1992 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main] Mehsana in M.A.C.P. No. 406 of 1985, wherein respondents nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein are the original claimants and respondent no. 4 is the original opponent no. 1. Respondents nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein have filed cross objections which are also disposed of with the present appeal.
2. The facts in brief are that on 08.01.1985 at around 0830 hours while Ashokumar was driving the car, at a particular place, a truck bearing no. GRW 823, driven by opponent no. 1, owned by opponent no. 2 and insured with opponent no. 3, in a rash and negligent manner dashed the said car. As a result of which Ashokkumar sustained severe bodily injuries and later on he died. The legal heirs of the deceased, file claim petition, which came to be partly allowed, by way of the impugned award. Hence, this appeal and cross objections for enhancement of the amount of total compensation is filed.
3. The learned counsel for original opponent no. 2 contended that the Tribunal has erred in appreciating the aspect of negligence inasmuch as the driver of the car was equally negligent for the accident. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have apportioned higher degree of negligence on the part of the driver of the car. He further contended that the Tribunal has also erred in computing the quantum of compensation though no documentary evidence was produced to prove the income. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned award deserves to be modified appropriately.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent original claimants submitted that the Tribunal has rightly apportioned the ratio of negligence to the extent of 75 : 25 between the driver of the truck and the driver of the car. He submitted that since the liability of public risk was also covered the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award. In support of his submission he had placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 1581.
5. On the aspect of compensation, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondents claimants that the Tribunal has erred in computing the income under the head of loss of dependency benefit. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the annual income of the deceased on the higher side, considering the evidence produced before the Tribunal.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. When the matter was earlier heard, it was felt necessary that the insurance policy of the truck is required to be examined in order to ascertain whether it covered the liability to public risk or not. Therefore, on the last occasion, the learned counsel for the appellant produced the insurance policy of the truck. Having gone through the said policy, it appears from the said policy that a premium of Rs.240/ has been paid for the liability to public risk and that the limit of the liability arising out of the single accident is Rs.50,000/. Considering the said policy and the decision rendered in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra), I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/ So far as the aspect of negligence is concerned, it appears from the evidence on record more particularly, the panchnama of the place of accident [Exhibit187], that the car had taken turn on the wrong side at the relevant time, on account of which,m the accident occurred, but it is also evident that had the driver of the truck being alert and careful, the accident could have been averted. Considering the fact that the truck being big vehicle and also the fact that the car driven had attempted to move the vehicle on the wrong side, I am of the opinion that the ratio of negligence apportioned by the Tribunal as 75 : 25 between the tricj driver and car driver is just and appropriate and hence I find no reasons to disturb the same.
7. So far as the issue regarding computing the income under the head of loss of dependency is concerned, it also appears that the Tribunal has straightaway considered the annual income of the deceased after deducting the personal expenses at Rs.25,000/. The said calculation made by the Tribunal is erroneous and also contrary to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121. From the documentary evidence on record, I am of the view that the annual income of the deceased could be fixed notionally at Rs.25,000/. To arrive at figure of prospective income we could follow the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav and Another, 1996 (3) SCC 179, which would come to Rs.37,500/. The total number of dependents are three. Therefore, by deducting 1/3rd amount as per the principle laid down in Sarla Verma's case (Supra), the annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.25,000/. The deceased was aged 27 years at the time of accident and therefore, the multiplier of 17 is required to be adopted, in my view, the principle laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra). Thus, by adopting the said multiplier the total income under the head of loss of dependency would come to Rs.4,25,000/. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,75,000/ under the said head and hence the respondents claimants shall be entitled for additional amount of Rs.50,000/. I also find that the Tribunal has not awarded an amount under the head of funeral expenses, loss of consortium as has been provided in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra). Therefore, the respondents claimants shall be entitled to receive Rs.5,000/ under the head of funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/ under the head of loss of consortium. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to receive an additional amount of Rs.65,000/.
8. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. The cross objections are allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the respondents claimants shall be entitled to receive additional amount of Rs.65,000/ along with interest @ 7.5.% from the date of the application till its realization. Rest of the impugned award remains unaltered.
[K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/