[1] This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 17.01.2001 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.I), Kutch at Bhuj in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.14 of 1994, wherein the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,90,600/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realization from opponents No.1, 2 and 3.
[2] Facts leading to filing of the case are that on 20.09.1993 deceased Kasam Alimamad was going from Mandavi to Khakhar in a rickshaw No.GJ-12-T-0013. One Rahemtulla was driving the said rickshaw on the left hand side of the road with excess speed. When the rickshaw reached near Village : Talwana road about 14 Kilometers away from Mandavi, the original opponent No.1 came from opposite direction with Jeep No.MH-02-K-336. He was driving the said Jeep recklessly, negligently. He lost control over the steering of the jeep and the jeep went to collide with an Auto-Rickshaw, thereby killing Kasam Alimamad. Therefore, the claimants being legal heirs have filed the aforesaid petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein the impugned award came to be passed which is challenged in the present appeal.
[3] Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the accident took place in the year 1993 and at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 27 years. He submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the prospective income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- per month. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that the amount of Rs.2,90,600/- awarded towards loss of dependency is on higher side. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in considering multiplier of 18 instead of 15. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is excessive and on the higher side. Learned advocate for the appellant, therefore, urged that the appeal deserves to be allowed.
[4] Learned advocate for the respondents submitted that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2009(6) SCC, 121, even if the income as assessed, by the Tribunal is taken into consideration Rs.3,500, the claimants will be entitled to 1 / 2 which comes to Rs.1750 x 12 = Rs.21,000. He submitted that even if multiplier of 15 is considered it comes to Rs.3,15,000/- plus Rs.15,000 for pain, shock and suffering plus Rs.15,000 conventional = Rs.3,45,000 whereas the tribunal has awarded compensation only Rs.2,90,600/-. Therefore, the respondents are entitled to Rs.54,400/- as an additional amount. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that the tribunal has in fact awarded compensation on lower side, and hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
[5] I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record as well as the judgment and award of the tribunal. I find that the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 18, which is on higher side. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2009(6) SCC, 121, the tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 15, instead of 18. Accordingly, the amount comes to Rs.3,15,000/-.
[6] Therefore, I am of the view that if additional amount of Rs.54,400/- is awarded compensation, the same would met ends of justice. Rest of the award is just and appropriate, therefore, they are not disturbed.
[7] In that view of the matter, the appellant is entitled to additional amount of Rs. 54,400/- under the head of future loss of income from the date of filing of the application till realization. The judgement and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The decree be drawn accordingly. Present appeal is partly allowed.
[K.S.JHAVERI,J.] vijay