1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 09.09.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Bhuj Kutch in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 102 of 2004 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of the 264500/ along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realization.
2.0 It is the case of the claimants that Bhikhiben Raysingh Rathwa aged 20 years was going on Tractor bearing No. GJ15E8662 for labour work. The tractor was driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner and in excessive speed. At about 1.00 o' clock at night, when the truck reached kodki road, the driver applied the brake and Bhikhiben fell down from the tractor and sustained serious injuries. Ultimately she succumbed to those injuries. The claimants therefore filed claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation to the tune of Rs. 460500/. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award. This appeal is at the instance of the claimants for enhancement of compensation.
3.0 Heard learned advocate for the appellant. It is contended that learned Tribunal erred in assessing and considering the income of the deceased to be only Rs. 2500/ per month.
4.0 The Tribunal has gone into the evidence in detail. 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 nonfatal 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 nonearning person, the notional income has been fixed at Rs. 15,000/ per annum.”
4.1 In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shyamsing reported in AIR 2011 SC 3231, the Apex Court has held that while considering the income of the minordeceased, the age of the parents is required to be considered. Accordingly, the annual income of Rs. 30000/ per annum considered by the learned Tribunal in absence of any documentary evidence is just and proper. Further, by applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision, the amount of compensation will be reduced. Since the appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation, the same cannot be reduced. In that view the matter, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. The appeal is dismissed.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) niru*