1. When this appeal came up for final hearing, Mrs.Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned advocate appears for respondent no.2-G.S.R.T.C. Both the learned advocates namely Mr.Hakim, learned advocate for the appellants, so also Mrs.Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned advocate for respondent no.2-G.S.R.T.C, request that considering the disputes raised in this appeal, the appeal may be heard and may be disposed of. Both the learned advocates representing both the parties further submitted that since the respondent no.1 was driver of the S.T.Bus and since he was servant of respondent no.2-G.S.R.T.C., the presence of driver may not be required for the purpose of disposal of this appeal.
2. In above view of the matter, the instant appeal is taken up for final hearing today with the consent of both the learned advocates.
3. Considering the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal, the appeal deserves admission.
4. This appeal is filed challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 12.07.2012 rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara, in M.A.C.P No.247 of 2002, whereby the Tribunal directed the respondents herein to pay in all Rs.4,97,500/- by way of compensation to the appellants herein, who were original claimants together with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of claim petition till the realization with the proportionate costs thereon.
5. As per the case of the appellants-original claimants, the vehicular accident occurred on 11.12.2001, at about 4:30 P.M, and at the time of accident, the deceased was riding a scooter bearing No.GJ-6-RR-5242 and when he reached near village Motizari, at that time the respondent no.1 being a driver of S.T.Bus bearing registration No.GJ-18-V-1999 came from the opposite direction with full speed and dashed his bus with the scooter of the deceased and in the accident, the deceased viz. Bachubhai succumbed to the injuries. It was the case of the appellants- original claimants that the deceased was aged about 36 years and he was Civil Draftsman and he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month.
6. Mr.Hakim, learned advocate for the appellants-original claimants, at the outset, submitted that the instant appeal is pressed by the appellants only on the ground that the Tribunal while determining the amount of compensation, failed to consider the future prospective income of the deceased. Mr.Hakim, further submitted that the Tribunal determined the actual income of the deceased before his death at Rs.3500/- per month. He submitted that since the deceased was aged about 36 years, the Tribunal should have considered his prospective future income at Rs.5250/- per month and on that basis, the Tribunal should have awarded compensation under the head of loss to the future dependency benefits. Mr.Hakim, learned advocate for the appellants-original claimants, therefore, submitted that if the Tribunal had considered Rs.5250/- to be future prospective monthly income of the deceased then the deduction of 1/4th amount towards the self expenses arrived at by the Tribunal is justified and in that case the Tribunal should have awarded in all Rs.7,09,200/- by way of compensation under the head of loss to the future dependency benefits. He therefore, submitted that the appellants-original claimants are entitled to get Rs.2,36,700/- by way of enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
7. Mrs.Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned advocate for respondent no.2-G.S.R.T.C opposed this appeal and submitted that the Tribunal did not commit any error in awarding the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal.
8. Since the appeal is now confined only on one ground that the Tribunal did not consider the future prospective income of the deceased, it would not be necessary for this Court to consider other details like negligence etc. The Tribunal assessed actual income of the deceased before his death at Rs.3500/- per month and in this appeal, the said part is not disputed. However considering the Paras-18 & 19, in impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal, it clearly transpires that while determining the amount of compensation under the head of loss to the future dependency benefits, the Tribunal did not consider future prospective income of the deceased, though at the time of accident and death he was aged about 36 years.
9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is substance in the submission made by MR.Hakim, learned advocate for the appellants- original claimants. The Tribunal should have considered future prospective income of the deceased at Rs.5250/- per month. (Rs.3500 + Rs.1750). Deducting 1/4th amount towards self expenses of the deceased, it can safely be said that the monthly loss under the dependency benefits sustained by the appellants comes to Rs.3940/-. No dispute is raised regarding the multiplier applied by the Tribunal.
10. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal should have awarded in all Rs.7,09,200/- (Rs.3940 X 12 X 15) under the head of loss to the future dependency benefits. The Tribunal awarded Rs.4,72,500/- under this head and therefore, it can safely be said that the appellants are entitled to recover Rs.2,36,700/- more by way of compensation.
11. No dispute is raised regarding the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads namely loss to the consortium, loss to the estate, transportation and funeral expenses etc.
12. Thus, in above view of the matter, this appeal requires to be partly allowed and respondents are required to be directed to pay Rs.2,36,700/- more to the appellants-original claimants by way of compensation and considering the facts and circumstances, the respondents are further required to be directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the original claim petition till the deposit.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 12.07.2011 rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara, in M.A.C.P No.247 of 2002 is hereby modified and the respondents are hereby directed to pay by way of enhanced amount of compensation Rs.2,36,700/- more (Rupees Two Lacs Thirty Six Thousands and Seven Hundred) with interest at the rate of 6% per-annum from the date of filing of original claim petition till the realization of the enhanced amount of compensation with proportionate costs thereon.
14. Mrs.Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent no.2-G.S.R.T.C, upon instruction, submits that the respondent no.2 shall deposit above referred amount with the concerned claim Tribunal preferably within four months. The tribunal shall disburse the amount and shall pass appropriate order regarding the investment etc. in accordance with law. No costs.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J) Suchit*