1. By way of this appeal the appellant has challenged judgement and award dated 06.02.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Amreli in MACP No. 234 of 1994, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 95,000/- together with proportionate costs and interest @ 12% from the date of claim petition till realization from the opponent Nos 1 and 3 and Rs. 95,000/- from opponent Nos. 4 and 5 subject to their negligency of 50%.
2. Brief facts of the case are that:
On 17.08.1991, one Pravinbhai Babubhai, while returning from Rajkot, was travelling in Rajkot- Savarkundla route S.T. Bus bearing registration No. G.J.1.Z.47. When the bus reached near Untwad-Charkha village on Rajkot-Bhavnagar Road one public carrier bearing registration No. G.T.O. 1730 came from opposite direction with excessive speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the S.T. Bus. Due to said accident, said Pravinbhai sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The deceased Pravingbhai Babubhai was aged about 33 years and was doing carpentry work and was earning Rs. 3,000/-. Original claimants have filed MACP No. 234 of 1994 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amreli for getting compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the opponents. The Tribunal passed the aforesaid award which is challenged in the present appeal.
3 Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the monthly income aspect of the deceased while awarding the compensation. He further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal is ex facie inadequate and deserves to be enhanced or suitably modified. He further contended that looking to the age of the deceased the multiplier should be 18 instead of 15.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. As regards income is concerned, there is no cogent evidence on record and therefore the Tribunal has taken the income att Rs.1500/- per month. Learned Advocate for the appellant is not in a position to point out anything from the record to show that any higher income is required to be taken.
6. However, on the facts of the case 1/4th is required to be deducted. Accordingly 1/4th of Rs.1500/- would come to Rs.375 and therefore the monthly income should be considered as Rs.1125/-.
7. There is no dispute that the deceased was of the age of 33 years. Therefore in view of the decision in the case of Smt. Sarla Varma and Ors. Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and anr. reported in 2009 ACJ 1928 the multiplier should be 16. Applying this multiplier the amount would come to Rs. The dependency benefit would come to Rs.2,16,000/- (i.e. Rs.1125 x 12 x 16).
8. Further in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Varma (supra), a sum of Rs.25000/- is required to be awarded under the head of future loss of inocme. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.1000/-. Thus the total compensation would come to Rs.2,41,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,90,000/-. Therefore the claimants are entitled to an additional sum of Rs.51,000/-. It is accordingly ordered that the claimants are entitled to an additional sum of Rs.2,41,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of application. The judgement and award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.]
JYOTI