1. The appellants herein have challenged the award dated 15.10.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Panchmahals at Godhra in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 349 of 2005 in so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 1,17,000/- by way of compensation to the original claimants along with 7.5% interest.
2. It is the case of the claimants that while Vijay was returning home from the field, the original opponent no. 1 came from behind driving a jeep bearing registration no. GJ- 17-C-3774 and hit him as a result of which the deceased sustained serious injuries. He succumbed to those injuries. The claimants being legal heirs and representatives of the deceased therefore filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,83,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Mr. Shastri, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal erred in quantifying the award at Rs. 1,17,000/- . He submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly considered the notional income of the deceased. He further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in deducting 50% amount qua personal expenses when it ought to have been 1/3rd.
3.1 In support of his submissions, Mr. Shastri has relied upon decisions of the Apex court in the cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Gurumallamma and another reported in 2009(9) SCALE 764 & National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shyamsing reported in AIR 2011 SC 3231.
4. Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the respondent supported the impugned award and submitted that the award having been passed after considering the evidence in detail does not call for any interference by this Court. He submitted that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income and finally awarded compensation which is just and proper.
5. The Tribunal has gone into the evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the accident in question happened because of the negligence of the driver of the jeep. However, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal seems to be on a lower side. As regards the income of the minor is concerned, the issue is now well settled by a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Gurumallamma and another (supra)wherein it is held as under:
“8. Multiplier stricto sensu is not applicable in the case of fatal accident. The multiplier would be applicable only in case of disability in non-fatal accidents as would appear from the Note 5 appended to the Second Schedule. Thus, even if the application of multiplier is ignored in the present case and the income of the deceased is taken to be Rs. 3,300/- per month, the amount of compensation payable would be somewhat between 6,84,000/- to Rs. 7,60,000/-. As the second schedule provides for a structured formula, the question of determination of payment of compensation by application of judicial mind which is otherwise necessary for a proceeding arising out of a claim petition filed under Section 166 would not arise. The Tribunals in a proceeding under Section 163 A of the Act is required to determine the amount of compensation as specified in the Second Schedule. It is not required to apply the multiplier except in a case of injuries and disabilities.
9. The Parliament in laying down the amount of compensation in the Second Schedule, as indicated hereinbefore, in its wisdom provided for payment of some amount which should be treated to be the minimum. It took into consideration the fact that a person's potentiality to earn is highest when he is aged between 25 and 30 years and that is why in case of permanent disability multiplier of 18 has been specified. The very fact that even if the deceased had an income of Rs. 3000/- per month, he being aged about 15 years, would receive a sum of Rs. 60,000/- but if his income was Rs. 40,000/- per annum, his legal heirs and representatives would receive a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-. In the case if any non-earning person, the notional income has been fixed at Rs. 15,000/- per annum.”
5.1 In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shyamsing (supra), the Apex Court has held that while considering the income of the minor-deceased, the age of the parents is required to be considered. Accordingly, considering the notional annual income of Rs. 15000/- per annum and the age of the mother, the datum figure as per the Second Schedule comes to Rs. 2,18,000/-. Deducting 1/3 from the total income for personal expenses, the amount of dependency loss per annum shall come to Rs. 1,45,333/- (Rs. 218000- Rs. 72,666) which is rounded off to Rs. 1,45,000/-.
5.2 The claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 2500/- for loss of estate. The claimants shall be entitled to in all Rs. 1,49,500/- by way of compensation whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,17,000/-. Therefore, an additional amount of Rs. 32,500/- is required to be awarded to the original claimants.
6. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 1,49,500/- by way of total compensation. Additional amount of Rs. 36,500/- shall be paid to the claimants at the rate of 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//