Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by the heirs of deceased Ibrahim Usmanbhai Kazi (Fakir) against the judgment and award dated 24.03.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) at Morvi in MACP No.217/1992, whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.2,06,000/- with 9% interest. The deceased was driving his Ambassador Car (GAY-9118) from Wankaner to Ahmedabad when a truck (GRW-2067) driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner dashed into the car, causing fatal injuries. The claimants sought Rs.3,00,000/- compensation. The insurance companies (respondent no.3 and no.5) filed written statements denying liability. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,06,000/-. Aggrieved by the quantum, the claimants appealed. The High Court heard arguments. The appellant's counsel argued that the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 12 instead of 16 as per the age of the deceased (46 years) and in not considering future prospects. The respondent's counsel supported the award. The Court found that the Tribunal had correctly assessed the income at Rs.1,500/- per month but applied wrong multiplier. The Court applied multiplier of 16 as per the age of the deceased (46 years) and added 40% towards future prospects. The Court also deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses as the deceased had 6 dependents. The Court recalculated compensation: monthly income Rs.1,500/- + 40% future prospects = Rs.2,100/-, annual income Rs.25,200/-, less 1/4th personal expenses = Rs.18,900/-, multiplied by 16 = Rs.3,02,400/-. Adding Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses, and Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- each to 6 dependents? Actually, the Court awarded Rs.40,000/- per dependent? The judgment says: 'Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to each of the dependents.' That would be 6 x 40,000 = 2,40,000. But the total compensation computed is Rs.3,02,400 + 15,000 + 15,000 + 2,40,000 = Rs.5,72,400. However, the Court directed the insurance company to deposit Rs.3,66,400/- with 9% interest. That suggests the enhanced amount over the Tribunal's award. The Court allowed the appeal and enhanced compensation.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Multiplier - The Tribunal applied multiplier of 12 based on age of deceased at 46 years, but as per Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the correct multiplier for age 46 is 13. However, considering the deceased was 46 years old, the multiplier should be 13, but the Court applied 16 as per the age of the deceased at 46? Actually, the Court applied 16 based on the age of the deceased being 46? Wait, the judgment says: 'the multiplier of 16 is required to be applied.' The deceased was 46 years old. As per Sarla Verma, multiplier for age 46-50 is 13. But the Court applied 16? Let me re-read: 'Considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 16 is required to be applied.' That seems inconsistent. However, the Court held that the multiplier should be 16. (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and proper, particularly regarding the multiplier applied and the assessment of income.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified. The respondent no.5 insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.3,66,400/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Motor Accident Claims
- Compensation
- Multiplier
- Income Proof
- Future Prospects
- Deduction for Personal Expenses
