- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by appellants aggrieved by award dated 14.06.2006 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track, Kotputli, in MAC Case No.225/2005 (505/2003) ? Smt. Meera and Others Vs. Udai Bhan and Others, by which learned
(2.) TRIBUNAL awarded compensation of Rs.2,06,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised two fold arguments; one is that there are four dependents and as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another ? (2009) 6 SCC 121, not more than 1/4th should have been deducted for self-expenses of the deceased whereas learned TRIBUNAL has wrongly deducted 1/3rd of the income towards self-expenses of the deceased while calculating loss of dependency. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants contended that deceased was 55 years of age at the time of his death. He died due to the accident involving a vehicle insured with respondent no.3. At the age of 55, multiplier of 9 ought to have been applied by learned TRIBUNAL. Learned counsel argued that according to the judgment in Sarla Verma, supra, and in view of the fact that there are four dependents, only 1/4th should have been deducted for self-expenses of the deceased, rather 1/3rd. Besides, in that judgment the Supreme Court has also held that for the age group of deceased between 56 and 60 years, the multiplier should be 9. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal and argued that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, cannot be applied to the facts of this case where accident took place long ago on 24.04.2003, therefore, learned Tribunal was justified in deducting 1/3rd for self-expenses and not awarding any compensation for future prospects. Learned counsel further argued that Statutory provisions clearly indicate that compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should not be a pittance and in this case the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable and should not be interfered with. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the view that even though the accident took place on 24.04.2003, the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, would apply to this pending appeal regardless that the judgment was delivered much after the date of accident in the present case. Argument of learned counsel for the appellants that deduction for self-expenses of the deceased should be only 1/4th keeping in view number of claimants, deserves acceptance. The learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3000/-, which has not been disputed by learned counsel for the claimants. After deducting 1/4th therefrom towards his self-expenses, dependency comes to Rs.2250/-. Instead of 7, the multiplier of 9 ought to be applied in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra. Calculating thus, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,43,000/- (2250x12x9). The compensation of Rs.38,000/- under non-pecuniary heads i.e. funeral expenses, loss of property, amount incurred on transportation, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and litigation expenses, is maintained. The appellants thus be entitled to receive a sum of Rs.2,81,000/- (Rupees two lac eighty one thousand only) (243000+38000), as total compensation. The appellants would be entitled for interest at the rate of 7.5% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition. Compliance of the order be made within three months. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of. ;