1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amreli in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.497 of 1997, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,23,000/- to original claimant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the application till its realization from the original opponent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The facts of the case is that on 07.10.1997, the deceased was going by driving the tanker No.GRP- 5881 and the deceased was trying to overtake a truck going ahead and at that time, one truck No.GJ-2-U-4039 came from opposite side and dashed with the tanker. As a result, the deceased-driver of the tanker and cleaner were died. Therefore, the appellants filed claim petition being Motor Accident Claims Petition No.497 of 1997 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amreli for compensation.
3. The Tribunal, after hearing learned advocate for the parties and after considering the evidence produced on record, decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated herein above, against which present appeal is preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has erred in holing both the drivers equally liable for the accident. He has further contended that the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 20, considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of accident.
5. Learned counsel Mr.Sunil Parikh for the respondent has supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that no interference is called for and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. So far as the issue of negligence is concerned, the Tribunal, after considering the Panchanama at Exh.37 and FIR at Exh.35 has rightly held that the accident was occurred due to equal negligence of both the drivers. Therefore, in my view the Tribunal was justified in considering the negligence aspect.
8. So far as the issue of quantum is concerned, the appellant was examined vide Exh.44, the owner of the truck was examined vide Exh.45 and driving license of the deceased was produced vide Exh.42. Therefore, in my view, the Tribunal was completely justified in assessing monthly income at Rs.2,500/- and accordingly annual income at Rs.30,000/-. The appellants-original claimants are mother and father of the deceased, therefore, The Tribunal was justified in adopting the multiplier of 11. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in calculating dependency at Rs.3,30,000/-, but, the Tribunal has erred in deducting 2/3 amount towards personal expenses. The Tribunal ought to have deducted ½ amount towards personal expenses, considering the ratio laid down by Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009(6) SCC 121. Hence, the appellants are entitled for Rs.1,65,000/- under the head of dependency.
9. The Tribunal was justified in awarding Rs.10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life, but, the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, instead of Rs.3,000/-. Hence, the appellants are in all entitled for Rs.1,80,000/-. As the Tribunal has already awarded compensation of Rs.1,23,000/-, the appellants would be entitled for Rs.57,000/- [Rs.1,80,000/- - Rs.1,23,000/-], but, as both the drivers are held equally liable for the accident, the appellants are entitled for additional compensation of Rs.28,500/- only.
10. As per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in case of Dhanraj Vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2004(8) SCC 553, a person cannot claim compensation for his own wrong. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in exonerating the Insurance Company of the tanker and holding original opponent Nos.1 and 2 liable to pay the compensation.
11. In that view of the matter, the appellants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs.28,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of application till realization. Rest of the award stands unaltered.
12. The appeal is partly allowed. Decree be drawn accordingly.
..mitesh..
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.]