1. No one appears for opponent No. 3.
2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) arises out of M.A.C.P. No. 1354 of 1991 in which the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gandhinagar awarded the compensation to the claimants of Rs. 1,27,597 being 80 per cent of negligence of the awarded amount further to recover from the original opponent Nos. 1,2 and 3 Rs. 31,8,99 being 20 per cent of the negligence with cost is to be recovered jointly and severely from the original opponent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 with 9 per cent with the rate of interest of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation.
"That the accident took place on 29.7.1991 at about 9.30 P.M. Near Chiloda Borkuwa. It is stated by the petitioners in both these petitions that deceased Arvindkumar Ishwarbhai Patel, and deceased Yakubbhai Ismailbhai Mansuri were travelling in Rickshaw bearing No. G.Q.E.-2936. They were coming from Chiloda and going towards Lawarpur. It is further stated that near chiloda Borkuwa, on the opposite direction, the Truck bearing No. G.J.-9-T4352 was coming with an excessive speed, and in rash and negligent manner. It is also stated that the said Rickshaw was going at the moderate speed and on correct side of the road at the relevant time. According to the petition, that opponent No. 1 was driving the said Truck as stated above without giving any sign or blowing horn and dashed with the Rickshaw by which both the deceased were travelling and caused the accident, and both the victims sustained gravious injuries and ultimately they both succumbed to their injuries."
3. The challenge in this appeal is on various grounds as mentioned in that memo of appeal and specifically it is contended that multiplier of 12 was applied while computing the compensation and as per the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and others vs. Maharasthra State Road Transport Corpn. and another reported in AIR 1998 SC 3191. just compensation is considered and above multiplier, the recent decision of case of Sarla Verma(Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, where table fixing various criteria including the multiplier is finally put to an end. At the time of hearing of this appeal and submissions are restricted to the extent of applying the multiplier and an error committed by the Tribunal accordingly.
4. Shri Sandip C. Shah learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the date of birth of the deceased based on School Leaving Certificate was not in dispute and he was aged about 30 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 17 and computing dependency could have been considered accordingly. To the extent above, the Tribunal erred in law and the appeal on this ground deserves to be allowed by modifying the award of the Tribunal accordingly.
5. Learned counsel appearing for opponent No. 6 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. who was held negligent to the extent of 20 per cent would contend that so far as preposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma about applying the multiplier, no dispute can be raised but at the time of considering the claim of the claimants by applying multiplier of 12 in the facts and circumstances of the case vis-a-vis the age of the deceased could not be said to be illegal. It is therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves to be rejected.
6. Upon consideration of submissions of learned counsel for the parties respectfully on perusal of the record of the case and judgment and award of compensation by the Claim Tribunal impugned in this appeal, I am of the view that the deceased was aged about 30 years on the date of accident and keeping in mind the principles of just compensation and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) along with other attending circumstances, the Claim Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 17 for determining the head 'future loss of income'. In para 11 of the judgment the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 36,000/-, in absence of any documentary evidence it was assessed as Rs. 1400/- per month and 1/3rd amount was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the Tribunal reached the income of the deceased as Rs. 934 per month. With applicability of multiplier of 12 to the deceased aged about 30 years future loss of income was held and determined to be l,34,496/-. Therefore, the above determination deserves to be modified by applying criteria of multiplier laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and multiplier of 17 is the proper multiplier and the claim to the extent needs to be modified. Therefore, the calculation under the head of future loss of income would be Rs. 11,208 multiplied by 17 comes to 1,90,536/- and the appellant is entitled to the additional amount of Rs. 56040/- over and above of Rs. 1,34,496 so awarded by the Claim Tribunal. That amount awarded by the Claim Tribunal under other heads remained as they are. The claimants-appellants are therefore, held to be entitled to receive and recover the amount of Rs. 56,040/- towards the difference under the head of 'future loss of income' and to that extent the total amount of compensation to be received and recovered by the claimants-appellants stand modified. The Additional amount of Rs. 56,040/- shall carry rate of interest of 9% per annum and to be deposited by Insurance Companies accordingly.
7. The Appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
[ANANT S. DAVE,J] FH.
Top