1. By way of this appeal, the appellant- Corporation has challenged the judgement and award dated 09.01.1985, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Main) Kheda at Nadiad, in M.A.C.P. No.425 of 1982, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.3,58,900/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 13.1.1982 an vehicular accident occurred between S.T. Bus bearing registration No. GTH-5409 and Matador van bearing registration No. GAA 6538 and due to the said one Prafulbhai and Nayanaben expired, therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.425 of 1982 before the Tribunal for compensation. The Tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant-Corporation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal committed error in awarding compensation to the claimants. He further contended that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on higher side. Therefore, he prayed to allow this appeal. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2009(6) SCC, 121.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents have opposed the appeal and have prayed to dismiss the same, as being without merit.
5. I have heard learned advocates for both the parties and perused the material on record. From the record it is clear that the Tribunal has not applied the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation(Supra). In view of the aforesaid decision the claimants are only entitled to 50% amount from the income of the parents. Even if Rs.30,000/- is considered as annual income of the deceased, Prafulchandra, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- per annum. Looking to the age of the father, the multiplier of 11 would be just and proper, in view of the decision of the Apex court in the case of Sarla Varma(supra). If multiplier of 11 is adopted, the dependency comes to Rs.1,65,000/-. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.5000/- under the head of funeral expenses. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,80,000/-.
6. Similarly, even, if Rs.1075/- is considered monthly income of the deceased, Nayanaben, the claimants are entitled to Rs.537/-, and accordingly annually it comes to Rs.6450/-. Looking to the age of the mother, the multiplier of 14 would be just and proper, in view of the deceased of the Sarla Varma(supra). If multiplier of 14 is adopted, the dependency comes to Rs.90300/-. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.5000/- under the head of funeral expenses. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,05,300/-.
7. Thus in all the claimants are entitled for Rs.2,85,300/-,whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,58,900/-. Therefore, the excess amount of Rs.73,600/- be refunded to the appellant- Corporation with interest and cost, if any, if the same is deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company with the Tribunal. The amount, if any, lying with the Registry be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
8. The judgement and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. Decree be drawn accordingly. The present appeal is partly allowed.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the Cross objection stands dismissed.
pawan [K.S.JHAVERI,J.]