1. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 09.02.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 59 of 2001 so far as the Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,29,500/- by way of compensation to the original claimants along with 9% interest.
2. The original claimants had filed application under section 163 A of the M.V. Act to get compensation on structured formula basis on account of the death of deceased in the vehicular accident on 15.10.2001. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Mr. Adil Mirza, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Marshall for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in quantifying the award at Rs. 3,29,500/- . He submitted that the Tribunal has awarded excess amount of compensation by wrongly taking the income of the deceased.
4. The Tribunal has gone into the evidence in detail. However, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal seems to be on a higher side. As regards the income of the deceased is concerned, the issue is now well settled by a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Gurumallamma and another (supra)wherein it is held as under:
“8. Multiplier stricto sensu is not applicable in the case of fatal accident. The multiplier would be applicable only in case of disability in non-fatal accidents as would appear from the Note 5 appended to the Second Schedule. Thus, even if the application of multiplier is ignored in the present case and the income of the deceased is taken to be Rs. 3,300/- per month, the amount of compensation payable would be somewhat between 6,84,000/- to Rs. 7,60,000/-. As the second schedule provides for a structured formula, the question of determination of payment of compensation by application of judicial mind which is otherwise necessary for a proceeding arising out of a claim petition filed under Section 166 would not arise. The Tribunals in a proceeding under Section 163 A of the Act is required to determine the amount of compensation as specified in the Second Schedule. It is not required to apply the multiplier except in a case of injuries and disabilities.
9. The Parliament in laying down the amount of compensation in the Second Schedule, as indicated hereinbefore, in its wisdom provided for payment of some amount which should be treated to be the minimum. It took into consideration the fact that a person's potentiality to earn is highest when he is aged between 25 and 30 years and that is why in case of permanent disability multiplier of 18 has been specified. The very fact that even if the deceased had an income of Rs. 3000/- per month, he being aged about 15 years, would receive a sum of Rs. 60,000/- but if his income was Rs. 40,000/- per annum, his legal heirs and representatives would receive a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-. In the case if any non-earning person, the notional income has been fixed at Rs. 15,000/- per annum.”
5. The Tribunal has specifically considered the age and income of the deceased and as per the schedule arrived at a figure of Rs. 3,20,000/- to which Rs. 4500/- is added qua funeral expenses and loss of estate. This court is in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal and therefore do not see any reason for causing interference. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//