1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 20.04.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main] Kachchh at Bhuj in M.A.C.P. No. 410 of 1994, whereby the claim petition was allowed and the original claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.2.00 lacs along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the application till its realization.
2. The facts in brief are that on 25.01.1994, at around 1000 hours, while respondents nos. 1 and 2 along with his son were proceedings towards Chitrod on highway, at that time, truck bearing no. GJ-12-T-5902, driven by respondent no. 3, owned by respondent no. 4, and insured with the appellant Insurance Company, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the child, as a result of which, he sustained severe bodily injuries and died on the spot. The legal heirs of the deceased child filed claim petition, which came to be partly allowed, by way of the impugned award.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has erred in quantifying the award at Rs.2.00 lacs. He submitted that the structural formula envisaged under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act came into force with effect from 14.11.1994 and the claim petition is filed under Section 166 of the Act and before the amendment.
4. It is required to be noted that the Tribunal has awarded compensation as per the structural formula and awarded an amount of Rs.2.00 lac since the accident in question had occurred on 25.01.1994 i.e. before the amendment in the Act. However, the issue is now well settled by a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurumallamma & Anr. 2009 (9) SCALE 764, wherein it is held as under :-
"8.
Multiplier stricto sensu is not applicable in the case of fatal accident. The multiplier would be applicable only in case of disability in non-fatal accidents as would appear from the Note 5 appended to the Second Schedule. Thus, even if the application of multiplier is ignored in the present case and the income of the deceased is taken to be Rs. 3,300/- per month, the amount of compensation payable would be somewhat between 6,84,000/- to Rs. 7,60,000/-. As the second schedule provides for a structured formula, the question of determination of payment of compensation by application of judicial mind which is otherwise necessary for a proceeding arising out of a claim petition filed under Section 166 would not arise. The Tribunals in a proceeding under Section 163 A of the Act is required to determine the amount of compensation as specified in the Second Schedule. It is not required to apply the multiplier except in a case of injuries and disabilities.
9. The Parliament in laying down the amount of compensation in the Second Schedule, as indicated hereinbefore, in its wisdom provided for payment of some amount which should be treated to be the minimum. It took into consideration the fact that a person's potentiality to earn is highest when he is aged between 25 and 30 years and that is why in case of permanent disability multiplier of 18 has been specified. The very fact that even if the deceased had an income of Rs. 3000/- per month, he being aged about 15 years, would receive a sum of Rs. 60,000/- but if his income was Rs. 40,000/- per annum, his legal heirs and representatives would receive a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-. In the case if any non-earning person, the notional income has been fixed at Rs. 15,000/- per annum."
5. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. In my opinion, the assessment made by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by the Tribunal in the impugned award and hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/