1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 16.05.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Panchmahals at Godhra in M.A.C.P. No.91/1991 whereby, the claim petition was partly allowed and the appellants, original claimants, were awarded total compensation of Rs.61,960/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs.
2. The facts in brief are that on 23.03.1990, after office hours, Vinodkumar Shashi, son of the appellants herein, was returning home by Bus bearing registration No. GAM 8435 driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3-Insurance Company, At a particular place, the said Bus stopped for Vinodkumar Shashi to get down. When Vinodkumar Shashi was in the process of alighting the Bus, respondent no.1 drove the Bus without noticing the fact that Vinodkumar had not alighted the Bus. In that process, Vinodkumar lost control and fell down from the Bus and subsequently, the rear wheel of the Bus ran over him. In the said incident, Vinodkumar died on the spot. His legal heirs filed the 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 have preferred the present appeal for enhancement of compensation.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The main ground on which the appellants have prayed for enhancement of compensation is that the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd amount while computing dependency benefit, which is contrary to 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 wherein, deducting of ½ has been provided in case the deceased is unmarried and the claimants are the parents.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents are not in a position to dispute the above proposition of law.
5. In view of the above, the deduction of ½ is to be effected for the purpose of computing the dependency benefit, which would come to Rs.500/- per month and to Rs.6,000/- annually. The multiplier of 10 adopted by the Tribunal is appropriate and also in consonance with the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 S.C.C. 176]. Hence, the total income under the head of loss of dependency benefit would come to Rs.60,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.39,960/- only under the said head and hence, the appellants shall be entitled for additional amount of Rs.20,040/- under the head of loss of dependency benefit.
6. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,000/- only under the head of funeral expenses instead of Rs.5,000/-, as has been provided in Sarla Verma's case (supra). Hence, the appellants shall be entitled for additional amount of Rs.3,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. In all, the appellants shall be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.23,040/-.
7. For the foregoing reasons, 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.23,040/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization, over and above, the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. 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/* Top