1. The appellants herein have challenged the award dated 26.02.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Baroda in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1683 of 1992 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 1,21,000/-as compensation with interest and costs.
2. It is the case of the appellants that on 10.10.1991 while Shri Jagdishbhai Patel was on duty as driver of S.T. Bus, he stopped the bus. At that time, a truck bearing registration no. GRW 2645 which was being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction loaded with iron rods and dashed with the driver side of the bus as result of which the driver tried to jump out of the bus but eventually he died on the spot. The appellants being legal heirs and representatives therefore filed claim petition for compensation. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Mr. Hakim, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed 50% negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles. He submitted that multiplier adopted is on lower side. He has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121.
4. Mr. Sunil Parikh, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Rajni Mehta for the respondent insurance company has supported the award passed by the Tribunal.
5. This Court heard the contentions advanced by both the sides and perused the papers on record. The Tribunal has gone through the documentary evidence on record and come to the conclusion that the drivers of both the vehicles were equally liable for the accident. No interference is called for regarding the same. In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 it is held as under:
“The multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table (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.”
6. As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), I am of the view that, looking to the age of the claimants, the multiplier of 15 awarded in the present case is on lower side. The just and proper multiplier would be 16. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs. 2,30,400/- (Rs.14400 x 16). The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 216000/- under the said head and therefore an additional amount of Rs. 14,400/- is required to be awarded. However, considering the negligence of 50% on the deceased, the claimants shall be entitled to only Rs. 7,200/- by way of compensation.
7. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The appellants shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 7,200/- alongwith interest at 7.5% from the date of application till realisation. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//