Memunabibi Makbulhussai Ibji and 3 and Others vs Shamgiri Sevagiri Goswami and Others

K.J. Thaker, J.—By way of this appeal, the present appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 23.07.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Tribunal, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in M.A.C.P. No. 1662 of 2001, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,47,000/- to the original claimant under different heads. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 03.12.2001, a vehicular accident occurred between Jeep bearing registration No. GJ-7H-2835 and Tempo bearing registration No. GJ-9T-4645 and due to the said accident one Makbulhusain expired. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No. 1662 of 2001 before the Tribunal for compensation. The Tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company.

I have heard learned advocate for the appellants and learned advocate for respondent No. 4. Though served none appears for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

The issue of negligence is rested as no Cross Appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company, the owner of the vehicle or the driver of the vehicle. As far as the issue regarding terms and conditions of the policy are concerned, they are also not challenged before this Court and the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal has been accepted by the Insurance Company.

Mr. Mansuri, learned advocate for the appellant heavily relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Other Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others [2013 ACJ 1403] and in the case of Laxmi Devi and Others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar and Another, and contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4500/-. However, later on he has restricted his claim to be Rs. 2500/- per month. He also contended that the Tribunal ought to have granted Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of loss of consortium.

Having heard learned advocate for the parties, I am of the view that the request at the later part of the argument finds favour with this Court. The Tribunal ought to have considered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2500/-. As per the latest decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Others (supra), 50% of the income will have to be added in the monthly income of the deceased. Out of the said amount 1/3rd amount requires to be deducted towards personal expenses in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, Looking to the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 16 would be just and proper, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and Others (Supra). Therefore, multiplier of 16 is adopted instead of 15.

The argument of learned advocate for the appellant that the trial Court ought to have granted Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of loss of consortium is not acceptable. Considering the year in which the accident occurred, I am of the opinion that if an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium is awarded to the claimants, the same would meet ends of justice.

If the monthly income of the deceased is considered to be Rs. 2500/- and if it is doubled and added the income it would come to Rs. 7500/- After taking half, it would be Rs. 3750/- per month. In view of the decision of the Sarla Varma (supra), if 1/3rd amount is deducted from the monthly income of the deceased towards his personal expense, which will come to Rs. 2500/- and accordingly, the yearly depedency comes to Rs. 30,000/-. If 16 multiplier is adopted, the yearly loss of future dependency comes to Rs. 30,000/- � 16 = Rs. 4,80,000/-, whereas the tribunal has awarded only Rs. 3,24,000/- under the head of loss of future dependency. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 1,56,000/- [Rs. 4,80,000 - Rs. 3,24,000] with interest at the rate of 7 1/2, per cent from the date of filing of the application. Over and above, the claimants are also entitled for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, in all the original claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 1,66,000/-[Rs. 1,56,000 + Rs. 10,000/-] with interest at the rate of 7 1/2 per cent from the date of filing of the application. The judgment and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The present appeal is partly allowed. Decree be drawn accordingly.