By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant – insurance company has challenged the judgment and award dated 4th April 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Fast Track Court, Surendranagar in MAC Petition No.359 of 1998 whereby the claim petition has been allowed partly. 2 The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are to the effect that the deceased – Vijaysinh Bharatsinh was working as a Driver on Matador bearing No.GJ.7.U 4914 and on the date of the incident i.e. on 23rd April 1998 while he was driving his Matador and reached village Chharad at about 6.00 AM, at that time his Matador van was given a dash by offending truck bearing No.GJ 2 V 4433 due to which he died. His heirs have filed aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.7 lakhs on various grounds.
3 The Tribunal considered the income of deceased at Rs.3000 per month and added Rs.1500 towards future economic prospects. Thus, the monthly income was considered at Rs.4500 out of which he deducted 1/4th amount towards personal expenditure of the deceased and arrived at Rs.3375 as monthly dependency benefit. He thereafter adopted the multiplier of 16 and thereby assessed future economic loss at Rs.6,48,000. Over and above aforesaid amount, he awarded Rs.10,000 under the head of funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000 under the head of conventional amount. Thus, in all, Rs.7,58,00 was awarded, against which this appeal is preferred by the insurance company.
4 Learned counsel for the appellant has inter-alia contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs.1 lakh on the head of conventional amount. He further contended that in view of the decision of the Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 4 SCC 121 the conventional amount should not exceed Rs.20,000.
5 Learned counsel for the claimants has supported the judgment and award of the Tribunal and submitted that no interference is called for. She has submitted that in cases of fatal motor accidents, some amount must always be awarded by way of compensation for loss of love and affection and consortium and that it is impossible to compensate for the loss of life. In support of her contention, she has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh, delivered in Civil Appeal No.1440 of 2011 dated 7th February 2011.
6 Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), it has been the consistent practice of this Court to award Rs.10,000 under the head of loss of consortium, Rs.10,000 under the head of loss of estate and Rs.5,000 under the head of funeral expenses. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the amount Rs.1,10,000 granted by the Tribunal under the head of conventional amount is on higher side and it should not exceed Rs.25,000. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs.25,000 only under this head and the remaining amount of Rs.85,000 along with interest and costs is ordered to be refunded to the insurance company.
In the result, appeal is allowed in part with no order as costs.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd