- (1.) THIS appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of the insurance company against the award dated 15th June, 2005 passed by the M.A.C.Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No. 505 of 2002 thereby awarding a sum of Rs.11,79,360/ as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization and with a direction on the insurance company to pay the said amount.
(2.) THERE is no dispute that the victim was hit by truck, resulting in his death. The Tribunal below, on the basis of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that due to negligence on the part of the driver of the truck the accident occurred. Victim was aged 41 years at the time of the accident and he was serving in Alembic Limited and he used to earn monthly income of Rs.6000/. The applicants made a claim of Rs.15,00,000/. The Tribunal below on considering the entire material on record including the question of future prospect, held future loss of income and dependency of the applicants to be Rs.10,17,360/ by applying multiplier of 15 on the monthly income of Rs.5652/. Over and above, the above amount, a sum of Rs.20,000/ was awarded under the head of "expectation of life", further Rs.20,000/ under the head of "consortium" and further Rs.2000 as funeral expenses. The Tribunal further held that the deceased would have got Rs.1,20,000/ as bonus and thus, total amount came to be Rs.11,79,360/ which is described as follows : Sr. Name of head Amount (Rs.) No. 1 Future loss of income and 10,17,360/ dependency 2 Bonus 1,20,000/ 3 Expectation of life 20,000/ 4 Consortium 20,000/ 5 Funeral expenses 2000/ Total 11,79,360/ Being dissatisfied, insurance company has come up with the present appeal.
(3.) MR . Nanavati, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company, at the very fist instance, drew my attention to the fact that there is no material available on record to indicate that the deceased would have got a sum of Rs.1,20,000/ as bonus and according to him, the award of the said amount causes serious prejudice to his client. Mr. Nanavati, further contends that the victim was 41 years of age and according to the principle laid down in the case of Sarla Verma v/s. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, appropriate multiplier should be 14.;