Mukesh R. Shah, J.@mdashADMIT. Shri Ankit Pandya, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent no. 1 and Shri Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent no. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties and more particularly, when the issue involved in the present appeal is in very narrow compass with respect to number of multiplier, present appeal is taken up for final hearing today.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 24.09.2013 passed in MACP No. 1067 of 2007, the appellants herein original claimants have preferred present First Appeal.
3. That in a vehicular accident which took place on 12.09.2007 between Activa bearing No. GJ-18L-7544 driven by the deceased Arvindbhai and Truck No. GJ-1AZ-8412 driven by the respondent No. 3 herein, Arvindbhai died. That the respondent Nos. 4/1 to 4/3 herein-original claimants therefore filed the claim petition No. 1067/2007 before the learned Tribunal claiming Rs. 30,60,000/- as compensation for the untimely death of deceased Arvindbhai. That it was the case on behalf of the claimants that at the relevant time the deceased was serving as Deputy Manager in Loksatta Newspaper Traders Pvt. Ltd. run by Indian Express Group, at Vadodara. That at the relevant time his salary was Rs. 29,000/- per month. According to the claimants, he would have got the second promotion as Senior Manager and his salary would have Rs. 40,000/- per month. That at the relevant time the deceased was aged 55 years. That on appreciation of evidence and considering the dependency at Rs. 33,830/- [after adding 15% at Rs. 29,418 towards prospective income] and thereafter, further deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure of the deceased, the Tribunal has considered dependency at Rs. 15,026/- [after deducting Rs. 7518/- towards expenses] and thereafter applying multiplier of 9, the learned Tribunal by impugned judgment and award has held and award Rs. 16,22,808/- to the original claimants towards the future economic loss and thereafter adding Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss to estate and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses, the learned Tribunal has awarded total Rs. 16,67,808/- as compensation to the original claimants.
3.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellant-original claimants have preferred the present First Appeal.
4. Shri Rahul Dholakia, learned advocate for the original claimants has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding future economic loss applying the multiplier of 9. It is submitted that the age of the deceased at the time of accident/death was 55 years and therefore, considering the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of
5. Shri Nanavati, learned advocate for the Insurance Company has initially tried to oppose the present appeal by submitting that as such against the very impugned judgment and award, the Insurance Company preferred First Appeal before this Court being First Appeal No. 315 of 2014 and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.02.2014 has dismissed the said appeal. It is submitted that therefore, the present appellant also may be dismissed. However, ultimately he has left it to the Court considering the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra).
6. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that while awarding future economic loss, the learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 9. However, it is required to be noted and even considering the evidence on record, more particularly, school leaving certificate produced at Exh. 63 the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 55 years. As such, the learned advocate for the respondent, more particularly, learned advocate for the Insurance Company is not disputing that the age of the deceased at the relevant time was 55 years. If that be so, considering the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded future economic loss by applying multiplier of 11. Under the circumstances, to that extent impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified.
7. So far as the submission on behalf of the respondent no. 2-Insurance company that against the very judgment and award, the Insurance Company preferred First Appeal No. 315 of 2014 before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.2.2014 has dismissed the said appeal and therefore, the present First Appeal be dismissed is concerned, the aforesaid cannot be accepted. While dismissing the First Appeal No. 315 of 2014 preferred by the Insurance Company this Court observed that amount awarded by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive and therefore, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company came to be dismissed. It is required to be noted that the said appeal was dismissed ex-parte and without hearing the claimants. In the present appeal when it is found that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in applying the multiplier of 9 and considering the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the right multiplier required to be applied is 11, the appellants-original claimants cannot be non suited on the ground that appeal preferred by the Insurance Company came to be dismissed.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal dated 24.09.2013 passed in MACP No. 1067 of 2007 is hereby modified and it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 22,08,744/- together interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization (instead of Rs. 16,67,808/- awarded by the learned Tribunal). The present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
