1. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and award dated 21.08.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad in M.A.C.Ps. No.919/1989 to 921/1989 whereby, the claim petitions were partly allowed.
The claimants of M.A.C.P. No.919/1989 were awarded total compensation of Rs.4.90 Lacs along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs.
The claimants of M.A.C.P. No.920/1989 were awarded total compensation of Rs.2.25 Lacs along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs. Whereas, The claimants of M.A.C.P. No.921/1989 were awarded total compensation of Rs.1.69 Lacs along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs.
2. The aforesaid claim petitions came to be preferred in connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 18.02.1989 on the Kheda – Dholka State Highway involving a Truck bearing registration No. GTX 2814. In the said accident, three persons expired. The legal heirs of deceased preferred the above claim petitions, which came to be partly allowed, by common impugned award.
3. F.A. No.1104/1997 has been preferred against the award passed in M.A.C.P. No.919/1989, F.A. No.1105/1997 has been preferred against the award passed in M.A.C.P. No.920/1989 and F.A. No.1106/1997 has been preferred against the award passed in M.A.C.P. No.921/1989. It has been mainly contended on behalf of the appellants, original opponents no.2 & 3, that the Tribunal has not decided the issue of negligence in its proper perspective and has also erred in computing compensation awarded under the respective heads. It has been contended that the Tribunal ought to have apportioned the ratio of negligence between the Truck and Scooterist at least at 50 : 50 instead of holding the Truck driver solely negligent for the accident. It has also been contended that the Tribunal has also erred in assessing the income of the deceased in all the claim petitions. It is, therefore, prayed that the compensation awarded deserves to be reduced appropriately in each appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned award and submitted that the Tribunal awarded the compensation in question, after examining each and every aspect of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned award may not be disturbed on any grounds.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. So far as the issue of negligence is concerned, the Tribunal has held the Truck driver solely negligent for the accident. However, from the panchnama of the place of accident, it appears that the width of the road is 24 fts. and that the accident took place on the centre of the road. Even if it is taken that approximately 6 fts. of the road on each end was under some repair work, then also there remains about 6 fts. on each side. Considering the fact that the accident site is on the centre of the road, I am of the view that the Truck driver cannot be held solely negligent for the accident. Both the drivers were negligent for the accident but, since the Truck being a heavy vehicle, it would be appropriate to apportion the ratio of negligence between the Truck and the Scooter at 80 : 20.
FIRST APPEAL No.1104/1997 :
6. In this case, it has been specifically urged that though the evidence on record establish that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.1,690/-, the Tribunal has assessed it at Rs.2,800/- without any justification. Having gone through the records of the case, I find merits in the said submission raised on behalf of the appellants since no documentary evidence is on record to prove that the monthly income of deceased was Rs.2,800/- at the time of accident. Now, if we assess the monthly income at Rs.1,690/-, which is rounded off to 1,700/-, then the prospective income, as per the decision rendered by Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121, would come to Rs.2,550/-. Considering the total number of dependents in the family, a deduction of 1/3rd is to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased. Hence, the monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,700/- and annual loss at Rs.20,400/-. Now, if we adopt the multiplier of 16 looking to the age of deceased, the total amount under the head of loss of dependency would come to Rs.3,26,400/-. However, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,60,000/- under the said head. Hence, an amount of Rs.33,600/- is required to be from the amount awarded under the head of dependency benefit.
%0.1 So far as amounts awarded under the other heads are concerned, I find that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- for loss of gratuity & pensionary benefit and Rs.25,000/- for loss of LTC. In my opinion, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the above two heads are not permissible under the law and the Tribunal ought not to have awarded the same. Hence, the amounts awarded under the above two heads are also required to be reduced. Thus, in all, an amount of Rs.1,08,600/- is required to be reduced from the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
%0.2 The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.4,90,000/-. Now, if we deduct the excess amount of Rs.1,08,600/-, the balance amount would come to Rs.3,81,400/-. However, the claimants shall be entitled for only 80% of the said amount on account of contributory negligence to the extent of 20% in the accident. Thus, the original claimants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,05,120/-, which is rounded off to Rs.3,05,200/-, along with interest and costs, so far as F.A. No.1104/1997 is concerned.
FIRST APPEAL No.1105/1997 :
7. In this case also, it has been specifically urged that though the evidence on record establish that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.900/-, the Tribunal has assessed it at Rs.1,500/- without any justification. Having gone through the records of the case, I find merits in the said submission raised on behalf of the appellants since no documentary evidence is on record to prove that the monthly income of deceased was Rs.1,500/- at the time of accident. Now, if we assess the monthly income at Rs.900/-, then the prospective income, as per the decision rendered in Sarla Verma's case (supra), would come to Rs.1,350/-. Considering the total number of dependents in the family, a deduction of 1/3rd is to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased. Hence, the monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs.900/- and annual loss at Rs.10,800/-. Now, if we adopt the multiplier of 17 looking to the age of deceased, the total amount under the head of loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,83,600/-. However, the Tribunal has awarded Rs1,80,000/- under the said head. Hence, an additional amount of Rs.3,600/- is required to be awarded under the head of dependency benefit.
7.1 However, it appears that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of services rendered by deceased for house-hold work, which is not permissible under the law. Hence, the amount awarded under the above head is required to be reduced. Thus, an amount of Rs.16,400/- is required to be reduced from the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal so far as F.A. No.1105/1997 is concerned.
7.2 The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-. Now, if we deduct the excess amount of Rs.16,400/-, the balance amount would come to Rs.2,08,600/-. However, the claimants shall be entitled for only 80% of the said amount on account of contributory negligence to the extent of 20% in the accident. Thus, the original claimants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,66,880/-, which is rounded off to Rs.1,67,000/-, along with interest and costs so far as F.A. No.1105/1997 is concerned.
FIRST APPEAL No.1106/1997 :
8. In this case, the deceased was a minor aged about 9 years at the time of accident. When the monthly income of the mother of deceased has been assessed at Rs.1,000/- [F.A. No.1105/1997], then the monthly income of deceased in this case could be assessed at Rs.500/-. A deduction of 1/5th is to be made towards personal living expenses of deceased and therefore, the monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs.400/- and annual loss at Rs.4,800/-. Now, if we adopt the multiplier of 18 looking to the age of deceased, the total amount under the head of loss of dependency would come to Rs.86,400/-. However, the Tribunal has awarded Rs1,44,000/- under the said head. Hence, an amount of Rs.57,600/- is required to be reduced under the head of dependency benefit.
8.1 The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,69,000/-. Now, if we deduct the excess amount of Rs.57,600/-, the balance amount would come to Rs.1,11,400/-. However, the claimants shall be entitled for only 80% of the said amount on account of contributory negligence to the extent of 20% in the accident. Thus, the original claimants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.89,120/-, which is rounded off to Rs.89,200/-, along with interest and costs so far as F.A. No.1106/1997 is concerned.
F.As. No.1104/1997, 1105/1997 & 1106/1997 :
9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the original claimants of F.A. No.1104/1997, 1105/1997 & 1106/1997 shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,05,200/-, Rs.1,67,000/- & Rs.89,200/- respectively. The excess amounts of Rs.1,08,600/-, Rs.16,400/- & Rs.57,600/- shall be refunded. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*