1. By way of these appeals, the present appellant-original opponent no.3 has challenged the judgment and award dated 17.01.2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Aux.), Vadodara, in M.A.C.P. No.347 of 1999 and M.A.C.P. No.353 of 1999, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.9,15,000/- in M.A.C.P. No.347 of 1999 and Rs.3,75,000/- in M.A.C.P. No.353 of 1999 to the applicants with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of application till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeals are that on 26.01.1999 one Chandrakantbhai was travelling alongwith his wife on his scooter bearing Registration No.GJ-15-D-154, by driving it in a moderate speed and were going towards Segva Village. At that time, the opponent No.1 i.e. driver of Tanker No.GTK-4607 came from opposite side, by driving his tanker in a rash and negligent manner and at an excessive speed, dashed with the Chandrakantbhai on wrong side of the road and caused the accident. That in the accident in question, said Chandrakantbhai and Vidulaben have sustained grievous injuries and they died on the spot. Therefore, the legal heirs and representatives of deceased have filed claim petitions bearing M.A.C.P. No.347 of 1999 and M.A.C.P. No.353 of 1999 before the Tribunal for compensation.
3. The learned tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petitions and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal has not properly considered the evidence produced on record. He further submitted that 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 has committed an error in awarding the future income of the deceased.
5. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the claimants have lost both their parents in the same accident. He, therefore, further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and therefore, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company deserve dismissal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly challenged the quantum issue. So for as First Appeal No.4605 of 2007 is concerned, the Tribunal has relied upon the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence produced before it and rightly assessed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-. Further, the Tribunal has erred in assessing prospective income at Rs.7,500/- as the deceased was aged about 41 years and therefore, considering the case of Sarla Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2009(6) SCC, 121, 30% rise in the income should have been adopted. Considering the ratio laid down in Sarla Varma's (Supra) prospective income comes to Rs.6,500/-. Moreover, the applicants are son and daughter of the deceased, ½ deduction ought to have been made. Hence, monthly dependency comes to Rs.3,250/-(Rs.6,500/2) and accordingly annual dependency comes to Rs.39,000. As the deceased was aged about 41 years, the multiplier of 14 should be adopted. Hence, total amount of dependency comes to Rs.5,46,000/-. In my view, the claimants are entitled for Rs.10,000/- for loss to estate, Rs.10,000/- for consortium and Rs.5,000/- for the funeral expenses. Hence, in all claimants of First Appeal No.4605 of 2007 are entitled to Rs.5,71,000/-(Rs.5,46,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5,000/-). The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.9,15,000/- towards compensation therefore, excess amount of Rs.3,44,000/- requires to be refunded to the appellant Insurance Company in First Appeal No.4605 of 2007.
7. So far as the First Appeal No.4606 of 2007 is concerned, the Tribunal has relied upon evidence produced before it. Hence, Tribunal has rightly assessed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- but, the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3 amount towards personal expenses. As the claimants are son and daughter, ½ amount requires to be deducted. Hence, monthly dependency comes to Rs.1,500/-. Accordingly, annual dependency comes to Rs.18,000/-. The deceased was aged about 39 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal was justified in adopting the multiplier 15. Hence, total amount under the head of dependency comes to Rs.2,70,000/-. In my view, the claimants are entitled for Rs.10,000/- for loss to estate, Rs.10,000/- for consortium and Rs.5,000/- for the funeral expenses. Hence, in all claimants of First Appeal No.4606 of 2007 are entitled to Rs.2,95,000/- (Rs.2,70,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5,000/-). The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.3,75,000/- towards compensation therefore, excess amount of Rs.80,000/- requires to be refunded to the appellant Insurance Company in First Appeal No.4606 of 2007.
8. In the premise, in all the excess amount of Rs.4,24,000/- (Rs.3,44,000/- from First Appeal No.4605 of 2007 and Rs.80,000/- from First Appeal No.4606 of 2007) will be paid back with interest and costs to the appellant Insurance Company, if any. It is, however, observed that if the amount deposited before the Tribunal is already withdrawn by the original claimants, the same shall not be recovered from the original claimants and the Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. But, if the amount has not been withdrawn by the original claimants, the same shall be refunded with interest and costs to the Insurance Company. Registry is directed to transmit the amount lying with this Court to the Tribunal concerned forthwith. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The appeals are allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
mehul (K.S.JHAVERI,J.)