1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 15.04.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main], Bhavnagar in M.A.C.P. No. 330 OF 1991, whereby the claim petition was partly allowed and the original claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.1,82,144/- along with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of application till its realization and proportionate costs.
2. The facts in brief are that on 07.05.1991 at around 0800 hours, while Narbheram was travelling in a matador bearing no. GTS 5190, owned by the appellant no. 1 and driven by appellant no. 2, at a particular place, the driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the said vehicle with the tree. As a result thereof, Narbehram sustained severe bodily injuries and subsequently he died. The legal heirs of the deceased, respondents herein, filed claim petition, which came to be partly allowed, by way of the impugned award. Hence, this appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The main ground on which the learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned award is that the Tribunal has erred in computing the income under the head of loss of dependency benefit. However, in my opinion, even if the income under the head of dependency benefit is reduced, the same would not make any difference, since the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the prospective income of the deceased. Therefore, in my opinion, that even if the impugned award under the head of loss of dependency is interfered that the ultimate difference in terms of monetary benefit would not be much. Therefore, I find no reasons to disturb the compensation under the head of loss of dependency. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant either had seek compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act and not under both the Act. In support of his submission he had place reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nasimbanu Wd./O Sirajuddin Amruddin Kazi v. Ramjibhai Bachubhai Ahir 2005(2) GLH 393.
4. It appears that the Tribunal has awarded compensation after considering the fact that the workman is already been awarded compensation under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore, also in my view the decision relied upon would not apply in the case on hand.
5. So far as the interest at the rate of 15% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the same is on the higher side and that the same deserves to be reduced.
6. Considering the facts of the case and in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr, (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121, interest at the rate of 15% per annum is on the higher side. In my opinion, if interest at the rate of 12% per annum is awarded, the same would meet with the ends of justice.
7. For the foregoing reason, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the original claimants shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of compensation as against 15% awarded by the Tribunal. The rest of the impugned award remains unaltered and is confirmed. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/