1. By way of this appeal, the original opponents – present appellants have challenged the judgement and award dated 03.05.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Vadodara in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1883 of 1992 whereby the Tribunal directed the original opponents to jointly and severally pay a compensation of Rs. 7,63,000/- to the original claimants with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and proportionate costs.
1.1 The original claimants have filed the cross objections seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.
2. The original applicants -present respondent nos. 1 to 3 who are the legal heirs of the deceased Shri Somabhai Prajapati had filed a claim petition seeking compensation for Rs. 10,00,000/- for the death of Shri Somabhai in the accident which had occurred on 10.11.1992 near Bodeli Dhokali Crossing while he was standing near the road. At that time an S.T. bus bearing no. GCC 9865 driven by original opponent no.1 at an excessive speed hit him and Shri Somabhai sustained serious injuries which resulted in his death. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Mr. J.D. Ajmera , learned advocate appearing for the appellant Corporation submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased without any documentary evidence and thereby erred in granting more compensation. He submitted that in absence of any documentary evidence the Tribunal ought not to have considered the annual income of the deceased more than Rs. 30000/-. He submitted that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is also on higher side and the same is required to be reduced to 14.
5. Mr. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the original claimants supported the award of the Tribunal so far as liability of the appellants is concerned. He however submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation which is on lower side. He submitted that the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased and the multiplier on a lower side. He submitted that in fact considering the age of the deceased the prospective income of the deceased was required to be taken after adding 30% to the income which makes the income Rs. 78000/- per annum. He submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded adequate amounts under loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
6. Heard learned advocates for the parties. The Tribunal has gone through the evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the S.T bus driver. This court is in complete agreement with the same.
7. In the present case the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 60000/- per annum. The Tribunal has considered the rise in income and thereby arrived at Rs. 75000/- as the prospective income per annum. No contrary view is required to be taken in this regard. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses. Therefore the loss of dependency per annum is taken as Rs. 50000/-. Nothing is pointed out to take a different figure in that regard.
7.1 I am of the view that, looking to the age of the claimant, the multiplier of 15 awarded in the present case is on higher side. The issue with regard to multiplier is already settled by the decision of Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 wherein it is held as under:
“The multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M- 17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M- 13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M- 9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”
7.2 In view of the aforesaid decision, the just and proper multiplier would be 14. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs. 7,00,000 (Rs.50,000 x 14).
8. As regards the rest of the awards the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses instead of Rs. 3000/-. Rs. 10000/- for consortium is also required to be awarded over and above the amount awarded under loss of expectation of life and consortium.
9. Therefore the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. 7,25,000/- (i.e. Rs. 7,00,000/- for future loss of income + Rs.10,000/- for loss of expectation of life + Rs. 10000/- for loss of consortium + Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses). The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 7,63,000/-. Therefore in all, amount of Rs. 38,000/- is required to be refunded to the appellant.
10. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. Cross Objection is also partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to a refund of Rs. 38,000/- alongwith interest at 12% from the date of application till realisation. The balance amount shall be paid to the claimants. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//