1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 16.04.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Porbandar in M.A.C.P. No.65/1997 whereby, the claim petition was partly allowed and the appellants, original claimants, were awarded total compensation of Rs.1,22,800/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization and proportionate costs.
2. The facts in brief are that on 16.11.1985 at about 0700 hrs. while Keshu Kana was travelling in a Matador bearing registration No. GJD 7217 driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3-Insurance Company and going to Rajkot from Porbandar, it turned turtle near Village Jetpur while attempting to over-take a bullock-cart and avoid collision with a vehicle coming from the opposite direction. As a result of the said accident, Keshu Kana was thrown out of the Matador and sustained severe injury on his head. Some time later, he succumbed to the injuries. His legal heirs filed claim petition before the Tribunal, which came to be partly allowed, by way of the impugned award. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the appellants, original claimants, have preferred the present appeal for enhancement.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent no.3. Though served none appears on behalf of respondent no.2. Before the Tribunal, the appellants had not produced any documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal assessed the notional monthly income at Rs.1,500/-. However, I find that the Tribunal initially deducted Rs.500/-, i.e. 1/3rd, towards the personal expenses of the deceased and thereafter, deducted another Rs.300/- towards house- hold expenses while calculating income under the head of loss of dependency. In other words, the Tribunal effected two deductions while calculating dependency benefit, which is illegal and erroneous. Further, the total number of dependents is five and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have deducted ¼th towards personal expenses in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121. By adopting the said principle, the monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs. 1,125/- and the annual loss at Rs.13,500/-. Considering the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 S.C.C. 176] which governed the subject at the relevant point of time, the appropriate multiplier is 13. By adopting the said multiplier, the total income under the head of loss of dependency would come to Rs. 1,75,500/-. However, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,800/- only under the said head and hence, the appellants shall be entitled for additional amount of Rs.74,700/- under the head of loss of dependency benefit itself. So far as income awarded under other heads are concerned, the same are just and appropriate and hence, are not disturbed.
4. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants, original claimants, shall be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.74,700/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*