Lakhiben Karmanbhai Bharwad vs Mohmedbhai Ambubhai Masani

@

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, C.J.—This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of the claimants in a proceeding under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and is directed against an award dated 25th November 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bharuch in MAC Petition No. 169 of 1996 thereby awarding a sum of Rs. 1,39,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realisation, on the death of the victim.

Being dissatisfied, the claimants have come up with this appeal while the Insurance Company has neither filed any counter appeal or any cross objection.

Therefore, the only question that arises for determination in this appeal is, whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal should be enhanced or not.

Mr. Hakim, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has made twofold submissions in support of the appeal. First, his contention is that the Tribunal committed a substantial error of law in deducting one-third amount as personal expenditure of the victim notwithstanding the fact that the victim left four dependents. By relying upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , Mr. Hakim contends that in such a situation, appropriate deduction should be one-fourth instead of one-third.

Mr. Hakim next contends that the Tribunal below wrongly applied the multiplier of 7 when, according to the claimants, the victim was 50 years old. It, however, appears from the post mortem report that the victim was described to be a person between 50 and 60 years. According to Mr. Hakim, even if it is taken to be above 55 years, appropriate multiplier should be 9 instead of 7.

In substance, Mr. Hakim prays for variation of deduction from one-third to one-fourth and for applying multiplier of 9 instead of 7 by following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra).

Mr. Mazmudar, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance company, however, does not dispute the fact that if we follow the principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), in that event, Mr. Hakim is correct regarding the above two contentions. He, however, submits that I should not follow the principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) in the facts of the present case.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am unable to accept the second branch of submission made by Mr. Mazmudar. In my view, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) should be applied and in that event, instead of one-third, one-fourth should be deducted and applicable multiplier should be 9 by treating the victim to be aged between 55 and 60 years.

If I apply the multiplier of 9, after deducting one-fourth, the total amount towards future dependency will come to Rs. 1,21,500/- which is less than the amount awarded by the Tribunal below. However, under the conventional heading Rs. 20,000/- should be added whereas the Tribunal had given only Rs. 13,500/-. Thus, by following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the amount will come to Rs. 1,41,500/-. Therefore, the award should be enhanced by Rs. 2000/-.

I, however, also find substance in the contention of Mr. Hakim that rate of interest should be at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the application till 31st December 1999 and at the rate of 9% per annum from 1st January 2000 till actual payment.

I, thus, allow this appeal by modifying the award to the extent that it will be enhanced by Rs. 2000/- and applicable rate of interest should be at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the application till 31st December 1999 and at the rate of 9% per annum from 1st January 2000 till actual deposit of the amount or till realisation, as the case may be. It may be clarified that on the amount already deposited by the Insurance Company pursuant to the award impugned in this appeal, no further interest will run after the date of deposit. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount within two months from today.

The appeal is, thus, allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.