Point of law: “Whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the dependents or that of the deceased has been hanging fire for sometime

JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 23.06.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kachchh in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 292 of 2009, the original claimant has preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

2. The following facts emerge from the record of the appeal -

2.1 That the accident occurred on 19.11.1997. The record indicates that deceased Darshan Rameshchandra Shah was travelling in his Maruti car bearing registration No. GJ12T9487 at about 18.30 Hrs. The record further indicates that when the car reached ST stand of village Gada, a truck bearing registration No. GJ12T5977 came from the opposite direction being driven in rash and negligent manner from the wrong side and dashed with the Maruti car. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. The appellant original claimants preferred claim petition under Section 163A of the Act. It was the case of the appellant that the deceased was 22 years old. As the facts indicate, initially the claim petition was allowed by award dated 05.07.2000, whereby the learned Tribunal was pleased to pass an award for a sum of Rs. 21,64,500/. The respondent Insurance Company filed an appeal before this Court being First Appeal No. 480 of 2001, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 17.07.2007, whereby this Court was pleased to quash and set aside the judgment and award dated 05.07.2000 and remanded back the proceedings to the Tribunal. The record indicates that the respondents claimants filed an application below exhibit 47 before the Tribunal inter alia praying that the income of the deceased be determined at Rs. 40,000/p. a. Suffice it to note that as recorded by the learned Tribunal in para 15 of the present judgment, the claimant as well as the insurance company agreed that the income of the deceased Darshan be considered and determined at Rs. 40,000/p. a. The learned Tribunal by partly allowing the claim petition, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,80,000/by considering the age of the claimant to be 49 years and income of the deceased at Rs. 40,000/per annum and applied multiplier based upon the age of the mother and deducted 1/3rd from the said amount. The Tribunal was further pleased to award compensation of Rs. 50,000/for future income and love and affection and Rs. 2,000/towards loss of estate and Rs. 2,500/as loss of estate, thereby awarding a total sum of Rs. 3,74,500/as compensation. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the original claimant has preferred this appeal.

3. Heard Mr. Jenil Shah, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Hemant Shah, learned advocate for the insurance company. Though served, no one appears for the respondent no.1.

4. Mr. Jenil Shah, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has committed an obvious error in applying the multiplier based on the age of the claimant, the mother of the deceased. Mr. Shah submitted that as per the Act, while calculating the compensation as per the structured formula, the age of the deceased is to be taken into consideration On that ground, Mr. Shah contended that the Award be modified by allowing the appeal. Mr. Jenil Shah, learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon the following judgments to buttress his arguments –

(1) Munna Lal Jain and Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Ors. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 347

(2) Mohammed Siddique and Anr Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2020) 3 SCC 57

(3) Sube Singh and Anr. Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 18

(4) Joseph Philip C.J. And Anr. Vs. Judies and Ors. reported in (2018) 11 SCC 638

5. Per contra Mr. Hemant Shah, learned advocate for the insurance company has supported the impugned award and contended that the Tribunal has committed no error. Mr. Shah submitted that that on the contrary, the Tribunal has awarded additional amount of Rs.50,000/unde