1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 13.03.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 941 of 1999 wherein the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the aforesaid claim petition by awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 385000/ along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.
2.0 On 22.12.1998 at 8.30 a.m. Anilkumar was goind as a pedestrian on the left side of the road. At that time truck No. GRQ 7594 came from the behind in excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed with Anilkumar causing him serious injuries. Ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries. The claimants therefore, filed the aforesaid claim petition wherein the learned Tribunal passed the aforesaid award which is challenged in the present appeal.
3.0 Learned advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal has committed error in quantifying the award at Rs.385000/; that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting 2/3rd amount from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; that looking to the fact that the deceased was unmarried and one real claimant is the mother of the deceased, 50% is required to be deducted towards personal expenses ; that multiplier of 15 is on higher side; that one claimant who is the brother of deceased cannot be said to be dependent.
4.0 Learned advocate for the respondent supported the judgement and award of the learned Tribunal and submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.
5.0 Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record.
6.0 As far as income in concerned, it was found that the deceased was driver and he was getting Rs. 2500/ as monthly salary and also Rs. 50/ for daily bhathha. Exh. 27 which is the salary certificate was produced before the learned Tribunal. However, in crossexamination of the claimants and on perusal of the licence certificate, it was found that the deceased was permitted to drive rickshaw. In that view of the matter, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income of Rs. 2000/ and Rs. 3000/ as prospective income by considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case. As far as loss of dependency benefit is concerned, it is found that the deceased was bachelor and the claimant are the parents. Therefore in view of the decision of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121,, normally 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Hence 50% benefit of the compensation should be computed by taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/ as base and the dependency benefits for the claimants would come to Rs. 1500/ per month which on annual basis would work out to Rs. 18000/. As far as multiplier is concerned, the age of the mother is required to be considered. The age of th mother was 47 years, therefore, multiplier of 13 will be applied for future loss of income as per the ratio laid down in case of Sarla Verma (supra). By applying multiplier of 13, the future loss of income would come to Rs.234000/ (Rs. 18000/ x 13). The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,60,000/ for future loss of income which in my opinion is on higher side.
7.0 Further, the amount of Rs. 10000/ towards loss of estate and Rs.
5000/ towards funeral expenses is just and proper. However, the claimants are not entitled for rs. 10000/ towards loss of life.
8.0 In the premises aforesaid, the total compensation would come to Rs. 249000/ (Rs. 234000/ towards future loss of income + Rs. 10000/ towards loss to the estate + Rs. 5000/ towards funeral expenses). The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 385000/ Therefore, an excess amount of Rs. 136000/ ( Rs. 385000/ Rs. 249000/) shall be refunded to the insurance company with the proportionate interest and cost. It will be open to the insurance company to recover the balance amount from the owner of the vehicle if the amount deposited by the appellant has already been withdrawn by the claimants. If the claimants, have not withdrawn the amount, it will be open for them to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. Any amount lying with this Court shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal. No order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*