1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 17.03.1998 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main.), Kheda at Nadiad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 296 of 1990 wherein the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the aforesaid claim petition by awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 152500/along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of claim petition till realization with proportionate costs and interest.
2.0 On 05.02.1989 the accident took place in village DungariTimba on National Highway No. 8 where one S.T. Bus bearing No. GQE 8803 and Truck bearing No. GRT 4996 dashed with each other. In this accident, the driver of the S.T. Bus sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The legal heirs of the deceased filed the aforesaid claim petition wherein the learned Tribunal passed the aforesaid award. This appeal is at the instance of the claimants for enhancement of compensation.
3.0 Learned advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in apportioning the negligence of both the vehicles to the extent of 5050% mechanically without appreciating the facts circumstances and evidence on record being F.I.R and deposition of witnesses.
4.0 Learned advocate for the appellant further contended that in view of F.I.R panchnama and deposition of all the witnesses, the learned Tribunal ought to have held that the deceased was not negligent and the said accident was a result of 100% negligent on the part of the opponent No.1 driver.
5.0 Learned advocate for the appellant further contended that the income assessed at Rs.200/ per month is on lower side. He submitted that as per the evidence produced before the Tribunal it is stated that the basic salary of the deceased was Rs. 1355/ per month. He was getting dearness allowance of Rs. 393/. Therefore, according to him, the salary would come to Rs. 1748/. The deceased was aged beyond 40 years at the time of accident. Therefore, 30% is required to be increased as per the principles laid down in case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. 30% of Rs. 1748/would come to Rs.524.4. Addition of the same would come to Rs. 2272.4 per month. Since the dependent family members are more than 5, 1/4th is required to be deducted. 1/4th deduction of Rs. 27268.8 would come to Rs. 20451.6. By applying multiplier of 14, the future loss of income would come to 286322.4.
6.0 Learned advocate for the respondent supported the judgement and award of the learned Tribunal and submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.
7.0 Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents on record.
8.0 As far as negligence is concerned, the Tribunal considering the complaint at Exh. 158 and also the panchnama of scene of offence at Exh. 159,found that both the vehicles had damaged and as there was headon collusion, as per the evidence on record, the drivers of both the vehicles will be equally liable for their negligence at the rate of 50:50. Hence no interference is required to be called for in that regard.
9.0 As far as income is concerned, as per the evidence produced before the Tribunal it is stated that the basic salary of the deceased was Rs. 1355/ per month. He was getting dearness allowance of Rs. 393/. Therefore, the salary would come to Rs. 1748/ per month. The deceased was aged beyond 40 years at the time of accident. Therefore, 30% is required to be increased as per the principles laid down in case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. 30% of Rs. 1748/would come to Rs.524.4. Addition of the same would come to Rs. 2272.4 per month and Rs.27268.8 per year. Since the dependent family members are more than 5, 1/4th is required to be deducted. 1/4th of Rs. 27268.8 would come to Rs. 6817.2 and 1/4th deduction towards personal and living expenses would come to Rs.20451.6. By applying multiplier of 14 looking to the age of the deceased in view of the decision in case of Sarla Verma ( supra), the future loss of income would come to 286322.4. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,70,000/ towards the future loss of income. Therefore, there would be additional amount of Rs. 16322.4 and round figure thereof would come to Rs.16320. Since there is negligence on the part of the deceased to the extent of 50%, 50% is required to be deducted. 50% deduction of Rs.16320/ would come to Rs. 8160/. Hence, the claimants are entitled for additional amount of Rs. 8160/ towards the future loss of income.
10.0 In the premises, it is held that the claimants are entitled to additional amount of Rs. 8160/ for future loss of income. The claimants are entitled for 8160 as additional amount at the interest rate of 7.5% from the date of the application. The award is modified accordingly. The appeal is allowed to aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*