1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 21.09.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Amreli in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 314 of 1997 whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 166,000/ with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition.
2.0 According to the claimants, on 16.06.1997, Baghabhai Jikarbhai was going to Marketing Yard at Rajula with his goods in the goods carrier auto rickshaw No. GJ14T6802. The driver was driving the goods carrier auto rickshaw at an excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of which the auto rickshaw turned turtle which resulted into the vehicular accident. Baghabhai Jikarbhai received serious injuries in the accident and he succumbed to those injuries. The legal heirs of the deceased therefore, filed the aforesaid claim petition before the learned Tribunal wherein the aforesaid award came to be passed. This appeal is at the instance of the claimants for enhancement of compensation.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellants contended that the learned Tribunal has committed error in deducting onethird (1/3rd ) for the loss of dependency benefit. He submitted that the 1/4th ought to have been deducted since there are four dependent family members. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi State Road Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, wherein it is stated that the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be onefourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6. According to him considering the income of Rs. 1500/ per month and by deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 1125/ per month and Rs. 13500/ per year. By applying multiplier of 13 years, the future loss of income would come to Rs.175500/. He further submitted that the claimants are also entitled Rs.10000/ under the head of loss of estate, Rs. 5000/ towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/ for loss of consortium in view of the principles laid down in case of Sarla Verma ( supra). Thus, the total compensation will be Rs. 200500/ whereas the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 166000/. Therefore the claimants are entitled to an additional sum of Rs.34500/ .
4.0 Learned advocate for the respondent supported the judgement and award of the learned Tribunal and submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.
5.0 Heard learned advocate for the appellant and perused the documents on record.
6.0 As far as income is concerned the same is not disputed. In absence of any documentary, cogent and reliable evidence with respect to the income, the Tribunal by considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case and nature of work has assessed the income of Rs. 1500/ per month. By deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, since there are four dependent family members, the loss of dependency benefit would come to Rs. 1125/ per month and Rs.13500/ per year. In the P.M. Note the age fo the deceased is shown as 50 years. Therefore, the multiplier of 13 applied by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. By applying multiplier of 13 years, the future loss of income would come to Rs.175500/.
7.0 Further, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.10000/ under the head of loss of estate, Rs. 5000/ towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/ for loss of consortium in view of the principles laid down in case of Sarla Verma ( supra). Thus, the total compensation will be Rs.200500/ whereas the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 166000/. Therefore the claimants are entitled to an additional sum of Rs.34500/ ( Rs. 200500/ Rs. 166000/).
8.0 In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants are entitled to a further sum of Rs. 34500/ in addition to the amount already awarded to them by the Tribunal. However, the interest on this additional amount will be only 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*