1. Heard learned advocate Mr. H.M. Modi for the appellants, learned advocate Mr. P.P. Lakhani for respondent No.3 and learned advocate Mr. R.G. Dwivedi for respondent No.1. Perused the record.
2. The appellants are original claimants in M.A.C.P. No.280 of 2011 before the M.A.C.T. of Page 1 of 4 C/FA/4495/2018 JUDGMENT Vadodara, wherein they have claimed an amount of Rs.10 Lacs towards compensation for the death of one Rameshbhai Vitthalbhai Vasava, husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellants No.2 and
4. It is undisputed fact that on 23.2.2011, when victim was travelling in Tempo No.GJ-6VV-9861 with his goods, because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of tempo being respondent No.1, victim fell down from the tempo and received fatal injuries. Respondent No.2 is owner of the vehicle; whereas, respondent No.3 is insurer of such vehicle. However, when none of the opponents - respondents have challenged the award, it becomes clear that there is no dispute regarding nature of incident, its result and liability of Insurance Company to pay compensation as per award by indemnifying the owner.
3. By impugned judgment and award dated 31.7.2017, Tribunal has awarded in all Rs.6,97,000/- considering Rs.4,000/- as monthly income of the victim from job-work of tailoring and deducted 1/4th towards his personal expenses. Tribunal has applied 15 as suitable multiplier considering the age of the victim being 40 years. In addition to an amount of Rs.5,40,000/- on such calculation for loss of dependency, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.1 Lac towards loss of love and affection, Rs.47,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- funeral expenses.
quantum of compensation, more particularly when Tribunal has not considered the prospective income of the victim, at the same time, when we have to rectify the quantum of compensation relying upon the full Bench decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017)16 SCC 680, for considering the prospective income, we cannot ignore the same judgment for awarding compensation under different non-conventional heads in aggregate, which should not be more than Rs.70,000/-. It is clear from the impugned judgment that on all such conventional heads, Tribunal has awarded in all Rs.1,10,000/- in addition to Rs.47,000/- for medical expenses, which is not to be disturbed.
5. In view of above facts and circumstances, if we peruse the entire judgment and award, it would be appropriate to consider Rs.5,500/- as average earning capacity of the victim, including prospective income as per Pranay Sethi (supra). Out of such amount if we deduct Rs.1,500/- towards personal expenses, then, it would be come to Rs.4,000/- and applying 15 as suitable multiplier, the amount would come to Rs.7,20,000/-. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs.7,20,000/- towards loss of dependency in place of Rs.5,40,000/-. Claimants are also entitled to Rs.70,000/- towards all non-
C/FA/4495/2018 JUDGMENT conventional heads in aggregate as per Pranay Sethi (supra), so also Rs.47,000/- towards medical expenses as awarded by the Tribunal.
Therefore, claimants are entitled to total amount of Rs.8,37,000/-.
6. In view of above discussion, the impugned award needs to be modified accordingly so as to confirm that claimants are entitled to total amount of Rs.8,37,000/- with 9% interest. Rest of the condition/s of the award shall remain unchanged. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed and disposed of.
7. R & P, if any received, shall be sent back to the concerned Tribunal.
(S.G. SHAH, J) BINOY B PILLAI Page 4 of 4