1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgement and award dated 23.12.1996 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 134 of 1994 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) at Bhavnagar.
2. Facts of the present case are that:
2.1 On 30.10.1993, one Ramesh Nandlal Khiraiya, present respondent, was passing through Savarkundla. All of a sudden, one truck bearing No. GTC 2315 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Nanabhai Rabari came from the opposite direction and dashed against him. He sustained grievous injuries on the head and on the left leg, and because of this, he became permanently dumb. At the time of accident, Mr. Ramesh was running a provision store and was earning Rs. 3000/- per month. The original applicant, therefore, filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 134 of 1994 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) at Bhavnagar claiming compensation of Rs. 4 lacs towards pain, shock and suffering.
2.2 The Tribunal, vide judgement and award dated 23.12.1996, partly allowed the application and awarded compensation of Rs. 3 lacs with 15% interest to be paid jointly and severally by the respondents and further directed that, if the respondents deposit the amount within six months before the Tribunal, then they will be entitled to 12% interest instead of 15%.
2.3 Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., original respondent No. 3 has preferred this appeal.
3. Counsel for the appellant contended that, the tribunal has committed error in applying multiplier of 18. He relied upon decision of the Apex Court, in case of Smt. Sarla Varma and Ors. Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and anr. reported in 2009 ACJ 1928. The Apex Court in this case held that the operative multiplier should be increased as 18 even in cases under Section 166 of the MV Act, by borrowing the principle underlying section 163A and the Second Schedule. The Apex Court observed that:
"Section 163-A begins with a non obstante clause and provides for payment of compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal representatives of the deceased or injured, as the case may be. Now if we turn to the Second Schedule, we find a table fixing the mode of calculation of compensation for third party accident injury claims arising out of fatal accidents. The first column gives the age group of the victims of accident, the second column indicates the multiplier and the subsequent horizontal figures indicate the quantum of compensation in thousand payable to the heirs of the deceased victim. According to this table the multiplier varies from 5 to 18 depending on the age group to which the victim belonged. Thus, under this Schedule the maximum multiplier can be up to 18 and not 16 as was held in Susamma Thomas case..... Besides, the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. For example, if the deceased, a bachelor, dies at the age of 45 and his dependents are his parents, age of the parents would also be relevant in the choice of the multiplier......What we propose to emphasise is that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years' purchase factor. This is the improvement over the earlier position that ordinarily it should not exceed 16..."
The Apex Court further held that multiplier should be applied to the age group of 21 to 25 years (commencement of normal productive years) and the lowest multiplier would be in respect of persons in the age group of 60 to 70 years (normal retiring age). The Apex Court, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”
4. He further contended that the tribunal has duplicated in awarding amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. He further submitted that the amount awarded is on a very higher side and it has to be reduced.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
6. In the present case, the doctor has assessed permanent partial whole body disability at 20%. The Tribunal assessed the income of Rs. 3000/- per month and as the injured sustained whole body disability of 20%, his loss of future income was determined at Rs. 600/- per month and Rs. 7200 per year. Considering the age of the applicant, the Tribunal awarded 18 multiplier and granted Rs. 1,29,600 towards future economic loss. However, the multiplier of 18 is on higher side and the Tribunal ought not have granted multiplier more than 16. Accordingly, the amount under future economic loss shall have to be Rs. 1,15,200/- instead of Rs. 1,29,600/-. The rest of the award is not disturbed.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the judgement and award dated 23rd December 1996 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Main), Bhavnagar in MAC Petition No. 134 of 1994 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,00,000/- to the claimant is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 2,85,200/-. The excess amount of Rs. 14,800/- is ordered to be refunded to the insurance company.
8. Further, the Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The same is excessive looking to the decisions of the Apex Court and the same shall not be awarded more than 12%. Hence, it is required to be reduced and accordingly the rate of interest awarded is reduced to 12% per annum from 15% in both the appeals. The excess amount of 3% of interest will be refunded back to the appellant-insurance company if the same is deposited by the appellant with the Tribunal.
First appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.] JYOTI