1. In connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 04.09.1996 involving the vehicle (Jeep) bearing registration No.GRG 2275 and in which Babubhai Hirabhai Khmlani had expired, the elder brother of the deceased had preferred claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.819/1996 u/s. 163-A of the M.V. Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kachchh - Bhuj.
2. The said claim petition was allowed in part, by judgment and award dated 22.12.1997 whereby, the original claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.2,44,500/- along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs. Against the said award, the present appeal has been preferred.
3. It has been contended on behalf of appellant-Insurance Company that the claim petition was filed by the elder brother of deceased, who cannot be said to be the heirs and legal representatives of deceased and therefore, the same ought not to have been entertained.
3.1 It is further contended that even if the same was entertained, then compensation should have been awarded as per the formula prescribed in the Second Schedule appended to the said proviso instead of applying the independent multiplier. In support of the said submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Gurumallamma and another, (2009) 16 S.C.C.
43.
4. Learned counsel for respondents-original claimants submitted that compensation could be awarded as per the Second Schedule and on the basis of the principle rendered by Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shyam Singh and others, AIR 2011 S.C. 3231,
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considering the facts of the case and the principle laid down in Gurumallamma's case (supra), the formula stipulated in the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act is required to be followed for computing compensation. In other words, in a proceeding u/s. 163-A of the Act, the amount of compensation is to be determined as per the formula specified in the Second Schedule. Further, in Shyam Singh's case (supra), the Apex Court has held that age of parents is to be taken into consideration while deciding a claim petition filed u/s.163-A of the said Act.
6. If we adopt the formula specified in the Second Schedule by considering the age of the mother of deceased at the time of accident and the annual income at Rs.15,000/-, the total compensation would come to Rs.1,94,,000/-. An amount equivalent to 1/3rd is required to be deducted from the said amount in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Accordingly, the total amount under the head of loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,29,000/-.
7. The claimants are also entitled for additional amounts of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.2,500/- under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate respectively. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,33,500/-. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.2,44,500/- and hence, the excess amount of Rs.1,10,000/- is required to be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that original claimants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,33,500/- only [Rupees One lac thirty three thousand five hundred only] along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum instead of 15% per annum and proportionate costs. The excess amount of Rs.1,10,000/- shall be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top