Niruben Dipakbhai Pathak and Others vs Balwant C. Barot and 1 Another

K.J. Thaker, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 5.9.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Bharuch in MAC Petition No. 402 of 2004 awarding the fewer amount than the amount claimed for the just compensation. The facts of the present appeal are that on 6.5.2004, at about 8.15 pm, the deceased Dipakbhai was riding his scooter bearing No. GCL 4207 and going towards his house situated at Gangotri Park, Link road, Bharuch. While he was driving his scooter, the opponent No. 1 was coming from the opposite direction, driving his rickshaw No. GRV 2604, rashly and negligently and in hectic speed and thereby his rickshaw was dashed with the scooterist and the accident was occurred and therefore, the scooterist was thrown away on the road. On account of the accident, serious injuries were caused to him and therefore, he succumbed to the injuries.

A very short issue is involved in this appeal, and that is, the multiplier applied and the income calculated are required to be seen. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the income of the deceased was likely to be grownup as soon as his consultancy flourishes. Moreover, as per the Income tax return of the year 2003-2004, the yearly income of the deceased was more than Rs. 7000/- p.m. The Tribunal, however, has restricted the same to Rs. 5000/- only, which is without any basis and valid reasons. Besides, the learned Tribunal has given multiplier of 5 only, though the deceased of the deceased was 53 years. In fact, if the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that his yearly income was Rs. 60,000/-, then, multiplier of 11 ought to have been given as per the Second Schedule of the M.V. Act, 1988.

As against this learned advocate Mr. Parikh for the Insurance Company has heavily relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of (i) Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, and (ii) Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 ACJ 1253. However, the Insurance Company has nowhere challenged the income, and therefore, it would not be just and proper to disturb the same when the Tribunal has considered the income on minimum of the scale despite the fact that he was earning much more. His income tax return shows much more income, and therefore, that is not disturbed. The only aspect which is disturbed is the multiplier 5 granted by the Tribunal which is on very lower side and hence the multiplier of 11 would allure as the deceased was in the bracket of 51 to 55 years.

The learned advocate for the Insurance Company has submitted that the income considered by the learned Tribunal is on higher side and cannot be accepted in light of the reasonings in para-3 hereinabove. This takes to the next issue of multiplier and that is the fact that the multiplier has to be 11 instead of 5. The learned Tribunal has grossly erred in not (considering the age factor, and has, therefore, committed manifest error in awarding multiplier and therefore the same requires to be disturbed. The appellants are entitled to the difference of the amount as the dependency benefit would be Rs. 5000 x 12 x 6 = 3,60,000/- Thus, the respondents are directed to pay the difference of amount of Rs. 3,60,000/- within a period of 8 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 7.5%, failing which, the rate of interest would be 9%. The appeal is partly allowed accordingly.