1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Auxi), Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.502 of 1999, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.8,25,000/- to original claimant with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the application till its realization and proportionate cost.
2. The facts of the case is that on 25.04.1999, the deceased was going by driving his maruti van No.GUM-7988 of the left side of the road. At that time, truck No.GJ-1-X-9126 was parked on the road without giving any signal or light or any caution and therefore, the van of the deceased dashed with the said truck. As a result thereof, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. Therefore, the original claimant filed claim petition being Motor Accident Claims Petition No.502 of 1999 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Auxi), Ahmedabad for compensation.
3. The Tribunal, after hearing learned advocate for the parties and after considering the evidence produced on record, decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated herein above, against which present appeal is preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has erred in considering the deceased only 30% liable for the accident. He has further contended that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the prospective income at Rs.8,000/-. He has further contended that the multiplier of 15, adopted by the Tribunal is on higher side.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and stated that no interference is called for and present appeal should be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. So far as the issue of negligence is concerned, the Tribunal, after considering the FIR at Exh.26, Panchanama at Exh.27 and oral evidence of Krunalbhai Nayanbhai Shah at Exh.43, who was an eye-witness to the accident, rightly assessed contributory negligence of the deceased at 30% and contributory negligence of the driver of the truck to the extent of 70% in Para-10 of the judgment.
8. So far as the issue of quantum is concerned, the pay-slip, showing income of the deceased at Rs.4,232/- was produced vide Exh.42 and the Tribunal has considered prospective income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-. Considering the ratio laid down by Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009(6) SCC 121, a rise of 30% in income should be given for calculating prospective income as the deceased was aged about 45 years. Thus, the monthly prospective income would come at Rs.6,110/- [Rs.4700/- + Rs.1410/-], rounded to Rs.6,100/-. The Tribunal was justified in deducting ¼ amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. Hence, monthly dependency comes to Rs.4,575/-, rounded to Rs.4,600/- and accordingly annual dependency comes to Rs.55,200/-. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 45 years, the multiplier of 14 should have been adopted, applying ratio laid down in case of Sarla Verma's Case (Supra). Hence, total amount of dependency comes to Rs.7,72,800/-.
9. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- for loss of expectation of life, Rs.10,000/- for consortium, Rs.10,000/- to both the children for love and affection and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and transportation charges. In my view, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. Original 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 original claimants are entitled to Rs.7,97,800/- [Rs.7,72,800/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/-
+ Rs.5,000/-]. As the deceased is held 30% liable for the accident, the original applicants are entitled for Rs.5,84,460/- as compensation. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.8,25,000/-, therefore, the balance amount of Rs.2,66,540/- is required to be refunded to the appellant- Insurance Company.
10. In the premises, the balance amount of Rs.2,66,540/- is ordered to be paid back along with the interest, cost, if any to the appellant- Insurance Company. 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, cost, if any. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
..mitesh..
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.]