1. By way of this appeal, the appellant- original claimant has challenged the judgement and award dated 15.07.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Auxiliary), Godhra, District Panchmahal, in M.A.C.P. No.1413 of 1991, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.1,,57,000/- to the original claimant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 01.10.1990, one shantaben was travelling in a Auto rickshaw bearing registration No. GRY-1234 along with co-passengers. When the said Auto rickshaw was crossing the railway track, at that time one Super-fast train came running from Godhra side and smashed the auto rickshaw. As a result of this accident, Shantaben and other co-passengers were died. Therefore, the legal representative of deceased filed claim petition being M.A.C.P No.1413 of 1991 before the Tribunal for compensation. The Tribunal after hearing learned advocate for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant-original claimant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in passing the impugned award. He further contended that the he tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. He further submitted that looking to the age of the deceased, the tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 16 instead of 15.
4. I have heard learned Learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. As regards the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant with regard to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads together with interest thereon, are concerned, I have gone through the impugned award and I find that the compensation awarded under the respective heads are just and appropriate and in consonance with the evidence on record and the law on the subject. However, Tribunal has committed an error in adopting the multiplier of 15. It is clear from the record, that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 32 years. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Limited and Ors.
Vs. Trilok Chandra and Ors. reported in 1996 SCC (4) 362, the multiplier of 15 adopted by the tribunal is on lower side. The tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 16 instead of 15. If the multiplier of 16 is adopted the net amount under the head of dependency comes of Rs. 8000/- x 16 = Rs.1,28,000/- whereas the the tribunal has awarded Rs.2,20,000/- under the head of dependency.
5. In that view of the matter, the claimant is entitled to additional amount of Rs.8000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7 ½ per cent from the date of filing of the application till realization.
6. The judgement and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The decree be drawn accordingly. present appeal is partly allowed.
pawan (K.S.JHAVERI,J.)