1 The appellants, original claimants, have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement, against the common judgment and award dated 2nd August, 2006 passed by the Fast Track Court No.4, M.A.C.T. [Auxi.], Sabarkantha at Himatnagar, in M.A.C. Petition No.1057 of 2003, whereby, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,15,200/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization against the opponents jointly and severally and qua M.A.C. Petition No.1069 of 2003, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,45,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization against the opponents jointly and severally.
2 The appellants filed the claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.1057 of 2003 to get a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- by way of compensation from the respondents for the death of Musabhai Patel and M.A.C.P. No.1069 of 2003 to get a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of compensation from the respondents for the bodily injuries received by Abdul Rahim Dadu.
3 The short facts for which the claim petition is filed, judgment and award for compensation and subject appeal are filed, are as under.
3.1 It is the case of the petitioners that on 24.07.2003, deceased Musabhai Patel and petitioner of M.A.C.P. No.1069 of 2003 were going to Jaipur to unload their truck bearing registration No.GU-13T-7289 driven by deceased Musabhai Patel. When said truck left Uadipur and reached near village Mamligat, at that time, at about 03.00 a.m., another truck bearing registration No.RJ-27G-3236, driven by opponent No.1 rashly and negligently, came and dashed with petitioners' truck, resulting into bodily injuries to petitioner Abdul Rahim Dadu and death of deceased Musabhai Patel. Because of this accident, petitioners of M.A.C.P. No.1057/2003 lost her husband and father while petitioner of M.A.C.P. No.1069 of 2003 received severe bodily injuries including fractures. Immediately after this accident, Abdul Rahim was first taken to Udaipur Government Hospital and later on, he was brought to Modasa for treatment. FIR was lodged with Devgadh Police Station vide F.C.R. No.207 of 2003.
4. Learned advocate for the appellants would contend that the claims Tribunal has erred in appreciating the material on record with regard to income of the deceased as well as injured and ought to have assessed higher income of Rs.3,000/- p.m instead of Rs.2,000/-. It is further submitted that even applicability of the multiplier to the deceased, aged 49 years, as per the deposition of the widow and the said age is in consonance with what is mentioned in the postmortem report, which is 50 years, and therefore, multiplier of 13 could have been applied. It is further submitted that to the above extent the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.1057 of 2007 deserves to be modified.
4.1 Even in injury case i.e. M.A.C.P No.1069 of 2003 the amount awarded for compensation is on lower side and the Tribunal failed to consider the material on record with regard to the income of the injured, who would have earned more income in future and further amount awarded under other heads viz. lump sum amount of medical expenditure also needs to be enhanced and accordingly the award be modified.
5. As against the above, learned advocate for the insurance-company would submit that in the backdrop of evidence which is produced on the record along with income of the deceased as well as injured, the Tribunal has determined and assessed the income in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in this regard and further no cogent material was produced which would establish higher income of the deceased and the claim. It is, therefore, submitted that the award of the Tribunal is just and proper, which does not require any interference by this Court in this appeal.
6. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the record along with documentary evidence and deposition of the widow of the deceased, who had deposed the age of the deceased as 48 years, and it was in consonance with the age of 50, mentioned in the postmortem report, and therefore, the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 11. As per the law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009)6 SCC 121], multiplier of 13 ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal and to the above extent the award of the Tribunal is modified.
The Tribunal has assessed the total dependency at Rs.18,000/- p.m and by applying multiplier of 13, the total compensation would come to Rs.2,34,000/- [Rs.18000 x 13]. The Tribunal has awarded amount of Rs.1,98,000/-. The remaining amount of Rs.36,000/- with interest @7% p.a shall be paid by the opponents from the date of application till its realization.
First Appeal No.4046 of 2007 is allowed to the above extent. The judgment and award dated 2nd August, 2006 passed by the Fast Track Court No.4, M.A.C.T. [Auxi.], Sabarkantha at Himatnagar in M.A.C. Petition No. 1057 of 2003 is modified to the aforesaid extent.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Fast Track Court No.4, M.A.C.T. [Auxi.], Sabarkantha at Himatnagar in M.A.C. Petition No. 1069 of 2003 is just and proper, which does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, First Appeal No.4047 of 2007 stands dismissed.
[Anant S. Dave, J.] *pvv Top