1. By way of present Appeal, the appellants – org. claimants have challenged the judgment and award dated 5.8.2002 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1115 of 1995 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Auxi.II), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Ahmedabad whereby the learned Tribunal awarded in all compensation of Rs.3,18,000/ along with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% p.a. in favour of the original claimants from the date of petition till realization from the opponents jointly and severally.
2. As per the case of the claimant before the learned Tribunal, on 6.5.1995, the deceased was going in a truck loaded with stones and the truck was passing towards Viramgam and at that time, one another truck bearing No.MH0968500, which was driving by the respondent No.1 herein in rash and negligent manner, dashed with the truck in which the deceased was travelling. Therefore, the deceased sustained serious injuries and during the course of medical treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased claimed compensation before the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,18,000/ to the claimants.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the award of the learned Tribunal is not just and proper and is against the evidence on record. She submitted that the income of the deceased was Rs.3000/ from agriculture work and Rs.1500/ from doing job as a driver. But the learned Tribunal only considered Rs.3000/ per month as income and after deducting 1/3, the dependency as Rs.2000/ was taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. She further submitted that yearly income came to Rs.24,000/ and after applying 12 multiplier, the Tribunal considered Rs.2,88,000/ under the head of future loss of income, which is very less. She submitted that in this matter, there are four claimants and therefore, ¼th share should have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal and therefore, as per ¼th share applying on Rs.3000/, Rs.750/ would come and after deducting Rs.750/ out of Rs.3000/, the amount would come to Rs.2250/ per month towards dependency and yearly dependency would come to Rs. 27,000/. She also submitted that after considering the age of 45 years of the deceased, 14 multiplier is required to be adopted. Therefore, Rs.3,78,000/ would come by way of future loss of income. She further submitted that Rs.5,000/ is also required to be awarded towards funeral expenses. She submitted that in all Rs.4,03,000/ as compensation is required to be awarded considering Rs.10,000/ as loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/ as loss of estate. But the learned Tribunal only awarded Rs.3,18,000/ as total compensation to the claimants and therefore, interference is required from this Court for enhancing the compensation upto Rs.4,03,000/ from the opponents.
4. Learned advocate for the respondent No.3 has supported the award passed by the learned Tribunal and considering the evidence recorded before the Tribunal, it has rightly awarded the compensation. Therefore, no interference is required to be called for by this Court.
5. Perused the record of the case. I have taken into consideration the submissions made by the parties. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,88,000/ under the head of loss of dependency by deducting 1/3rd share as Rs.1000/ from the monthly income of Rs.3000/. But here in this case, there are four claimants and therefore, 1/4th share is required to be deducted. So the amount would come to Rs.750/ per month and after deducting said amount from Rs.3000/, Rs.2250/ per month would come as dependency. The yearly dependency would come to Rs.27,000/ and considering the age of deceased, 14 multiplier is just and proper. Therefore, the future loss of income would come to Rs.3,78,000/ and after adding Rs.10,000/ as loss of conventional amount, Rs.10,000/ as loss of estate and Rs.5000/ towards funeral expenses, the amount of Rs.4,03,000/ would come as total compensation. I have taken into consideration the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009(6) Supreme Court Cases 121. The appellants – claimants are therefore, entitled to Rs.4,03,000/ towards compensation under the head of future loss of income.
6. In view of the above, now the claimants are entitled to the additional compensation in all Rs.85000/ with the interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the opponents . Therefore, the Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.
ynvyas (K.S. JHAVERI, J.)