1 The appellants, original claimants, have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement, against the judgment and award dated 31st August 1990 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.III, Ahmedabad, in M.A.C. Petition No.205 of 1991, whereby, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,48,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization against the opponents jointly and severally.
2 In the claim petition, the claimants made the claim of Rs.6,50,000/- on account of accidental death of deceased Kamleshkumar Prajapati as a result of vehicular accident which occurred on 8.2.1991 at about 2.45 p.m. near Noblenagar Tea Circle Road. The deceased was driving his scooter GAV 5312 with a moderate speed on the right side and, at that time, opponent No.1 came with Fiat Car No.GJ-9-5252 in full speed and rash and negligent manner without giving any signals and dashed with the scooter and knocked down the deceased on the road, as a result of which, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to death.
3 Certain facts are not in dispute as also the age of the deceased about 51 years, who was earning Rs.4394/- per month as gross salary at the time of accident. The Tribunal, after considering the future prospectus in the service, determined monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8000/-, out of which, an amount of Rs.2500/- was deduced towards personal expenses and restricted to Rs.5500/- as monthly income for determination of dependency loss. Multiplier of 8 was applied. Thus, the Tribunal assessed dependency loss at Rs.5,28,000/-.
4 Assessment of loss of dependency and applicability of multiplier by the Tribunal is under challenge in this appeal.
5 Basically, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. DTC, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and submitted that the Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 8 since the deceased was aged around 51 years and ought to have applied the multiplier of 11. Monthly income of the deceased was determined at Rs.8000/-, by deducting one-third towards persons expenses [Rs.2500/-], it would come to Rs.5500/- and, multiplied by 12, yearly dependency loss can be determined at Rs.66,000/- and, applying 11 multiplier, the dependency loss can be determined at Rs.7,26,000/-. It is, therefore, submitted that the award of the Tribunal is required to be modified and enhanced to the above extent.
6 Ms.
Sonal Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, submits that, initially, the claim was restricted to Rs.6,50,000/- and no additional amount, beyond the original claim, can be awarded by this Court and, further, rate of interest is also awarded @12% p.a. It is, therefore, submitted that the award of the Tribunal is just and proper as per the law prevailing at the time of passing of the award. However, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company is unable to dispute the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) about applicability of multiplier in case of deceased aged around 51 years.
7 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), admittedly, there was no dispute about the age of the deceased being 51 years and the Tribunal ought to have applied a multiplier of 11. To the above extent, the award of the Tribunal deserves modification. To recap the calculation, the monthly income of the deceased was determined at Rs.8000/-, by deducting one-third towards persons expenses [Rs.2500/-], it would come to Rs.5500/- and yearly dependency loss is determined at Rs.66,000/- and, applying 11 multiplier, the dependency loss is determined at Rs.7,26,000/-. However, as per the original claim, the claim is restricted to Rs.6,50,000/-. Hence, I deem it just and proper to enhance the total compensation from Rs.5,28,000/- to Rs.6,50,000/-. The net effect is that enhanced amount of Rs.1,02,000/- is awarded to the claimants with interest @ 7% p.a from the date of the claim petition till realization. Barring the above, no other modification or change is ordered.
8 The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 31st August 1990 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.III, Ahmedabad, in M.A.C. Petition No.205 of 1991, is modified to the aforesaid extent.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy) Top