Reva Khetrapal, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 1st April, 2009 whereunder the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 7,90,100/ - with interest thereon to the Appellants against the claimed amount of Rs. 20 lakhs.
(2.) THE facts emerging from the record succinctly stated are that on 12th January, 2006 at about 12.40 a.m., Bunty Khatri (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') aged 22 years was travelling in a Maruti Esteem car bearing registration No. DL -6CH -1307 driven by one Bijender. When the said car reached the Centur Hotel, Samalkha Chowk, it was hit by a truck/canter bearing registration No. HR -45 -5279 from the back side as a result of which Bunty Khatri sustained fatal injuries, resulting in the registration of FIR No. 04/2008 at Police Station Mahipalpur against the driver of the said truck, the Respondent No. 1 herein. The deceased was survived by his wife, the Appellant No. 1 herein, who died during the pendency of the claim petition, a minor son who was nine months old at the time of his death (the Appellant No. 2) and his parents, the Appellants No. 3 and 4 herein. By its award dated 1st April, 2009, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 7,90,100/ - along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till the realization of the amount. Aggrieved by the amount awarded by the Tribunal, the Appellants have preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the award amount. Although a number of grounds were taken up in appeal, at the time of arguments Sh. O.P. Mannie, the learned Counsel for the Appellants raised only the following two contentions: (i) The Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier at 17 to the multiplicand of Rs. 43,824/ - (assessed to be the annual income of the deceased) whereas even as per the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. : AIR 2009 SC 3104, the multiplier of 18 is applicable to the age group of 21 years to 25 years. (ii)The Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, whereas the deceased being the sole bread -winner of a family comprising of four other members could not have been spending more than 1/4th of the amount earned by him towards his own expenses.
(3.) MR . Manoj R. Sinha, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the learned Tribunal and contended that the Tribunal had not erred in adopting the multiplier of 17 since the said multiplier was the multiplier given in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned Counsel also contended that the deduction of only 1/4th (one -fourth) of the amount earned by the deceased towards his personal expenses would not be justified. He contended that 1/3rd (one -third) deduction had in fact acquired statutory recognition under the Second Schedule of the Act.;