1. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 30.09.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Panchmahals at Godhra in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1084 of 2002 so far as the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,40,000/- by way of compensation to the original claimants along with 9% interest.
2. It is the case of the claimants that while the deceased Shamimbanu was playing near her house, a truck bearing registration no. GJ-17-X 2139 driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased as a result of which the deceased was run over by the speeding vehicle and sustained serious injuries. She succumbed to those injuries. The claimants being legal representatives of the deceased therefore filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in quantifying the award at Rs. 2,40,000/- . He submitted that the Tribunal erred in considering the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 15000/- per annum in absence of any cogent evidence on record. He submitted that infact even if the schedule under the Act is perused the income ought to have been considered at Rs. 15000/- per annum is considered, the legal representatives being the parents are entitled to only ½ of the income considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121. He submitted that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is also on higher side.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent supported the impugned award and submitted that the award having been passed after considering the evidence in detail does not call for any interference by this Court. He submitted that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as per the Schedule.
5. The Tribunal has gone into the evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the accident in question happened because of the negligence of the driver of the truck. The Tribunal has considered the income of the minor girl at Rs. 15000/- per annum. Even if Rs. 15000/- as provided in the Second Schedule is considered, the parents shall be entitled to only half of the income towards dependency benefits. Accordingly, the dependency loss shall come to Rs. 7500/- per annum. The multiplier of 15 adopted in the present case is on lower side. Considering the age of the minor girl which is 13, multiplier of 18 shall be just and proper. Accordingly the future dependency loss shall come to Rs. 1,35,000/-. Against this, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,25,000/- which is excessive.
5.1 The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3000/- towards funeral expenses which also seems to be on lower side. Hence, an additional amount of Rs. 2000/- is awarded under this head. As regards the rest of the award under various heads is just and proper and no interference is required. Therefore the claimants are in all entitled to Rs. 1,52,000/- as compensation (Rs. 1,35,000 for future loss of income + Rs. 5000 for funeral expenses + Rs. 10000/- for loss of estate + Rs. 2000/- for transportation charges).
5.2 The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,40,000/- as compensation and therefore excess amount of Rs.88,000/- is required to be refunded to the insurance company. However, as the claim in appeal is restricted to only Rs. 86,000/- the appellant shall be entitled to a refund of Rs. 86000/- only.
6. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The excess amount of Rs. 86,000/- along with proportionate interest at 9% shall be refunded to the insurance company. The rest of the amount shall be paid to the claimants. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//