BAI SONIBEN & 5 vs RAMANBHAI GANESHBHAI PATEL & 1

] This First Appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act praying for modifying the judgment and order dated 02.06.2006 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Fast Track Court No.2, Godhra in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.785 of 1995, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,09,900/. The learned tribunal considered the deceased 25% negligent and therefore, awarded 75% of Rs.4,09,900/, which comes to Rs.3,07,425/, however, round figure comes to Rs.3,07,500/has been awarded with interest mentioned therein.

] It is the case of the appellants that on 18.05.1995, the deceased was going from his house to village Gorada for his service on Bajaj Scooter No.GJ17B2891 owned by him. The deceased was driving his scooter slowly, carefully and at moderate speed on the ride side of the road as per the traffic rules. When he was passing near village Dalji na Chakaliya busstand at about 10:30 a.m., the opponent No.1 came from opposite side driving his Jeep No.GJ17A8675 in rash and negligent manner and with an excessive and uncontrollable speed. The opponent No.1 could not control over his jeep due to excessive speed and and jeep left the road and dashed with the scooter. The deceased was thrown off the road and sustained serious injuries.

] Heard Mr. Arpit Kapadia, learned advocate for the appellants, and Mr. Shashikant Gade, learned advocate for respondent No.2Insurance Company. Rule issued by this Court is duly served upon the respondent No.1, however, they did not appear.

] Mr. Arpit Kapadia, learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the judgment award passed by the Tribunal is improper, unjust and against the provisions of law. He then contended that the learned Tribunal has committed grave error in holding the deceased was negligent at the time of accident, which extent to 25%. His second contention is that the learned Tribunal erred in adopting 13 multiplier. Looking to the age of the deceased and the claimants, the learned Tribunal ought to have adopted 17 multiplier. He then contended that he learned Tribunal has completely discarded the evidence for prospective rise in income of the deceased. He, therefore, submitted that the award requires to be modified as prayed for.

] Mr. Shashikant Gade, learned advocate for respondent No.2Insurance Company has submitted that the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. He further submitted that the learned trial Judge has rightly awarded the amount under different heads and rightly applied multiplier and therefore, the same requires no interference.

] So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, both the learned advocates have worked out by perusing the Record and Proceedings available with them in light of the impugned award and on going through the Record and Proceedings, both the learned advocates have submitted that the income was considered by the learned Tribunal at Rs.2,400/and by adding 50% of the prospective rise, the same comes to Rs.3,600/per month. In that view of the matter, however both the learned advocates have conceded to consider the same at Rs.3000/and by adding 50% future prospective rise, the same would come to Rs.4,500 per month.

] Before the Tribunal the appellants produced sufficient evidence regarding income and age of the appellants which is just and proper. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the claimant. The multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. Hence this Court is inclined to award multiplier of 15 as per the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors., vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Further, Keeping that in mind, this Court is of the view that multiplier of 15 is just and proper instead of 13.

] Hence if we consider the aforesaid income of the deceased and multiplier as considered, the calculation arrived at as under:Rs. 3,000/income of the deceased, however, considering the age of the deceased, 50% of the wages it so be taken as prospective income. Therefore, Rs.3,000/per month plus 50% prospective income of the total wage i.e. Rs1,500/is to be added and hence, Rs.4,500/per month income of the deceased is considered. In working out so, taking into consideration his income Rs.4,500/and and considering the age of the deceased, instead of 13, the appropriate multiplier would be 15, so far applying the same, the calculation comes to 4500*12*15=Rs.8,10,000. Out of the said amount, if the 1/3 amount towards his personal expenses is deducted, the same comes to Rs.5,40,000/.

] Over and above the aforesaid future loss of income, the Tribunal has also awarded Rs.10,000 to wife of the deceased, Rs.10,000/towards the pain, shock and sufferings, Rs. 10,000/under the head of loss of expectation of life, Rs.2,000/towards the funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/towards the loss of estate and Rs.1,000/towards the transportation, which are kept intact. The total compensation comes to Rs. 5,75,500/( Rs.5,40000/for future loss of income, and Rs.35,500/under the various heads as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Considering the 25% negligence of the deceased, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.4,31,625/.

] For the reasons recorded above,appeal is partly allowed and judgment and award passed by the Motor Vehicle Act praying for modifying the judgment and order dated 02.06.2006 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Fast Track Court No.2, Godhra in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.785 of 1995 granting the compensation of Rs.3,7,500/- is enhanced to Rs.1,24,125/-. Therefore present appellants are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,24,125/- with interest at the rate of 9% till 31.12.2000 and thereafter, at the rate of 7.5% till realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the aforesaid amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. Upon deposit of the amount, the same shall be disbursed to the appellants on proper verification. Thus, award deserved to be modified to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Records and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court, concerned forthwith.