1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 15.05.2004 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kachchh at Gandhidham in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.257 of 2002 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,04,500/ along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till deposit in the Tribunal.
2.0 On 17.08.2002 Abdul Amad Ladak was going for labour work in a godown from Mithirohar to Shekhar Vadi. At that time a rickshaw came and knocked him down as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. He ultimately succumbed to the injuries. The claimants therefore filed the aforesaid claim petition under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein the aforesaid award came to be filed.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the deceased was minor and income and the multiplier taken by the Tribunal is on higher side and that the Tribunal has followed the structured formula as per Second Schedule of the Act mechanically and such reliance has resulted into awarding higher amount to the claimant.
4.0 As a result of hearing and perusal of the record, there is no dispute that the deceased was 15 years old. As regards the income of the minor is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gurumallamma and another reported in 2009(9) SCALE 764 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 nonfatal 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 163A 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.
9.0 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.3,000/ 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 of any nonearning person, the notional income has been fixed at Rs.15,000/ per annum.”
5.0 In view of the above it is very clear that the Tribunal is not required to strictly apply the multiplier except in a case of injuries and disabilities. Even in injury or disability case multiplier of 18 has been specified. It is further evident that in case of minor application of multiplier of 20 is just and reasonable.
6.0 In the present case the Tribunal has taken the income of Rs.15,000/ per annum. The deceased was 15 years old. Therefore, by applying multiplier of 20 years as per the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, it would come to Rs. 3,00,000/ ( Rs. 15,000/x 20). 1/3rd deduction would come to Rs. 1,00,000/ and therefore the net amount would be Rs.20000/. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.4500/ under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses, which in my opinion is just and proper. The learned Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.2, 04, 500/ as compensation to the claimants.
7.0 No other point is urged for consideration.
8.0 I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal. No case is made out. The appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*