BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, C.J. -
(1.) ALL these three appeals are taken up together as those arise out of a common award passed by the learned M.A.C.T.[Aux.], Vadodara, in M.A.C.P. Nos. 1223 of 1993, 1690 of 1993 and 1691 of 1993, in respect of the selfsame accident.
(2.) BEING dissatisfied, the insurance company has come up with these three appeals. There is no dispute that due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle in question in M.A.C.P. No. 1223 of 1993, the victim died, whereas in M.A.C.P. Nos. 1690 of 1993 and 1691 of 1993, the claimants were injured. Therefore, the above three claimapplications were filed; the first one being M.A.C.P. No. 1223 of 1993 filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased claiming Rs.8.00 lakh and in the other two M.A.C.P. Nos. 1690 of 1993 and 1691 of 1993, the claimants themselves claimed Rs.1,05,000/ - each for the injuries suffered by them.
(3.) THE claim -applications were contested by the insurance company and the learned Tribunal, by a common award awarded a sum of Rs. 4,68,700/ - in M.A.C.P. No. 1223 of 1993, while in M.A.C.P. No. 1690 of 1993, a sum of Rs. 52,000/ - was awarded. In the other M.A.C.P. No. 1691 of 1993, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 42,000/ -. The learned Tribunal below directed that the insurance company should pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of filing of the application till 31st December 1999 and from 1st January 2000 till realization at the rate of 9% p.a. As indicated earlier, the insurance company has come up with these three appeals.
I first propose to take up the First Appeal No. 2098 of 2005 preferred against the award passed by the learned Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 1223 of 1993, where the victim died. Mr. Nair, the learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant has restricted his submission only on the question of the quantum. It appears from the record that the victim who was aged 45 years died leaving two heirs and used to earn at the time of death a monthly income of Rs. 2403.40 ps. It appears from the evidence given by the employer that if the deceased would have remained alive till 1999, i.e. six years after the date of the accident, his monthly income would have come to Rs. 3810.50 ps. The learned Tribunal below, took the prospective income of the victim to be Rs. 3450/ -. Thereafter, it deducted 1/3rd amount for personal expenses of the deceased and arrived at a figure of Rs. 2415/ - a month and thereafter, making it a rounded figure of Rs. 2400/ -, treated it as amount of monthly loss of dependency. The said amount was multiplied by 12 to make it yearly dependency loss of Rs. 28,800/ - and then, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 to arrive at the figure of Rs. 4,32,000/ -. In addition to the aforesaid amount, the learned Tribunal below further added a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - towards the loss of contributory provident fund and further sum of Rs. 1700/ - for loss of gratuity. Apart from that, a further sum of Rs. 25,000/ - was awarded towards the conventional amount to arrive at the figure of Rs. 4,68,700/ -.
After going through the documentary evidence about the salary, if we apply the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., 2009 6 SCC 121, 30% is to be added to the monthly income of Rs. 2400/ - to make it Rs. 3120/ -. Thereafter, it should be multiplied by 12 to make it the figure of annual income of Rs. 37,440/ - and by applying the multiplier of 14, the amount will come to Rs.5,24,160/ -. 1/3 of the same should be deducted towards personal expenditure and thus, the total amount will come to Rs. 3,49,440/ -. In my opinion, a further sum of Rs. 25,000/ - added by the learned Tribunal below is not required to be interfered with. Thus, the amount comes to Rs. 3,74,440/ - with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of filing of the application till 31st December 1999 and at the rate of 9% p.a thereafter, till realization.;