1. The appellants herein have challenged the award dated 15.06.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Jamnagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 601 of 1996 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 1,09,400/- as compensation with interest and costs.
2. It is the case of the appellant that on 10.09.1996 the deceased Shri Vashram Jesangbhai was travelling in a rickshaw bearing registration No. GJ – 10- T 8653 after paying fare, and at that time a truck bearing registration no. GJ-12-T 9302 came for the opposite side which was being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the truck collided with the rickshaw and the rickshaw turned turtle killing Shri Vashram Jesang. The appellants therefore being the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Mr. R.C, Kakkad, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal erred in adopting a multiplier of 5 after considering the age of the deceased at 60. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the age of the original claimants no. 6 & 7 who are the father and mother of the deceased which is stated as 68 & 66 respectively. In such an event the age of the deceased assessed at 60 years is not just and proper.
4. Mr. Parikh, learned advocate appearing for the insurance company has supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted the multiplier is just and proper in view of the fact that the age of the deceased was stated to be 60 years as per his own son.
5. The issue involved in this appeal is only qua the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal. It is required to be noted that the son of the deceased has said that the deceased was 60 years old and the Tribunal has proceeded on that basis. However, considering the age of the claimants, the age of the deceased being 60 years is out of question. In fact the panchnama says that the age of the deceased was around 50 years. The Tribunal ought to have considered the age of the deceased at 50 years and thereby applied appropriate multiplier.
5.1 In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 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.”
6. The income of the deceased is considered at Rs. 24000/- per month and after deducting the amount for personal expenses the dependency loss shall come to Rs. 18480/-. As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), I am of the view that, looking to the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 5 awarded in the present case is on lower side. The just and proper multiplier would be 10. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs. 1,84,800/- (Rs.18,840 x 10).
7. As regards the rest of the awards under various heads are just and proper and no interference is required. Therefore the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs.1,84,800/-. Therefore in all, an additional amount of Rs. 92,400/- is required to be paid to the appellant.
8. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 92,400/- alongwith interest at 7.5% from the date of application till realisation. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//