1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 28.08.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.-II), Surendranagar in M.A.C.P. No.646/1993 whereby, the claim petition was allowed in part and respondents no.1 to 5, original claimants, were awarded total compensation of Rs.7,85,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs.
2. The aforesaid claim petition was filed in connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 07.07.1993 involving a Truck bearing registration No. GJ-2-T-7215 and in which Narshangbhai Ramjibhai had expired. The said Truck was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company.
3. The main ground under which the appellant has challenged the impugned award is that the compensation calculated under the head of loss of dependency is contrary to the law on the subject. In support of the submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Under no other heads, the appellant-Insurance Company has assailed the award.
4. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the claimants that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on the lower side considering the age of deceased. It was submitted that the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 16 while computing compensation. Under no other heads, the claimants have prayed for enhancement.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Before the Tribunal, the claimants had produced the salary slip of the deceased for the month of June 1993 vide Exhibit-22. According to the said salary slip, the gross monthly income of deceased was Rs.2,054/-. Therefore, for calculating loss of dependency, the prospective monthly income of deceased is to be considered. For calculating prospective income, the Tribunal has considered the monthly income, which the deceased would have received at the time of his retirement, had he been alive. The said method adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous and contrary to the law on the subject. If we adopt the principle laid down in Sarla Verma's case for calculating the prospective monthly income, the amount would come to 3,081/-, which is rounded off to Rs.3,100/- per month. A deduction of 1/4th is to be made towards personal living expenses of deceased since the total number of claimants are five. Hence, the monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs. 2,325/- and annual loss at Rs.27,900/-. Considering the age of deceased at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier is 16. Thus, by adopting the said multiplier, the total amount under the head of loss of dependency would come to Rs.4,46,400/-.
6. So far as compensation under the other heads are concerned, the claimants are entitled for Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- under the head of conventional amount and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,71,400/-. However, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.7,85,000/- and hence, the excess amount of Rs.3,13,600/- is required to be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company.
7. For the foregoing reasons, both the appeal and cross-objection are partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the respondents, original claimants, shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,71,400/- [Rupees Four lacs seventy one thousand four hundred only] along with interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal. The excess amount of Rs.3,13,600/- shall be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company with interest and costs. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The appeal and cross-objection stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top