1. Mr. Adil R. Mirza learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to delete respondents no.6 & 7 herein as party-respondents from the present proceedings. Permission is granted. Respondents no.6 & 7 herein are deleted as party-respondents from the present proceedings. Name of learned counsel Mr. Adil R. Mirza has been shown in the appearance as advocate for the appellant. However, Mr. Mirza states that he shall file 'Vakalatnama' on behalf of the appellant during the course of the day.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 18.12.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad City in M.A.C.P. No.1220/1996 whereby, the claim petition was partly allowed and respondents no.1 to 6, original claimants, were awarded total compensation of Rs.4.47 Lacs along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization and proportionate costs.
3. The facts in brief are that on 07.09.1994 at about 2015 hrs. Dineshbhai Kalabhai Vaghela and one of his friends, namely (deceased) Kanaiyalal Lakhabhai Parmar, were returning home on a Scooter bearing registration No. GJ-1-E-291, which was driven by Kanaiyalal Parmar. While they were crossing Subhash Bridge in Ahmedabad City, a Bus bearing registration No. GJ-1-T-7603 driven by original opponent no.1 and belonging to the appellant herein, dashed the Scooter. In the said accident, Dineshbhai sustained severe bodily injuries and died on the spot. His heirs and legal representatives, respondents no.1 to 6 herein, filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.6.00 Lacs, which came to be partly allowed by way of the impugned award. Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that in another claim petition arising out of the same accident, the Tribunal has apportioned the ratio of negligence between the AMTS driver and the Scooterist at 70 : 30 and hence, in this case also, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned negligence at the same ratio. It has been further contended that the Tribunal has erred in computing income under the head of loss of dependency since the method adopted 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. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned award and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation in question and therefore, this Court may not entertain the present appeal.
5. The contention raised by the appellant regarding the issue of negligence is misconceived inasmuch as the claim petition arising out of the same accident wherein, the Tribunal has apportioned the ratio of negligence between the AMTS Bus and the Scooter at 70 : 30, was preferred by the claimants, i.e. heirs and legal representatives of deceased-Kanaiyalal Parmar, who was driving the Scooter at the relevant point of time. In the present case, the claimants are the heirs and legal representatives of the pillion rider of the Scooter. Therefore, the ratio of negligence that may be applicable for the driver cannot be made applicable to the pillion rider also. The Tribunal has considered the said aspect in detail in Para-8 of the award and thereafter, came to be conclusion that the driver of AMTS Bus was solely negligent so far as the present claim petition was concerned. I completely agree with the view and the reasonings given by the Tribunal while recording the above conclusion and I find no reasons to disturb the same.
6. However, so far as the issue regarding quantum of compensation is concerned, I find that the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. In my opinion, the assessment made by the Tribunal is just and appropriate considering the fact that the deceased was a Labour Contractor. The Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th amount towards personal expenses since the total number of dependents were six. However, the multiplier of 16 adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side and not in accordance with the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 S.C.C. 176] wherein, the multiplier of 13 has been provided for persons of the age group of the deceased. By adopting the said multiplier, the total income under the head of loss of dependency would come to Rs.3,51,000/- [viz. 2250 x 12 x 13].
7. So far as income awarded under other heads are concerned, the claimants are entitled to receive additional Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, over and above, Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of expectation of life and Rs.5,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. Thus, the claimants are entitled to receive total compensation of Rs.3,71,000/- under the respective heads.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that respondents no.1 to 6, original claimants, shall be entitled to receive total compensation of Rs.3,71,000/- [Rupees Three lacs seventy one thousand only], as against Rs.4,47,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization and proportionate costs. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The excess amount of Rs.76,000/- shall be refunded to the appellant. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*