ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)

1. Leave to delete Respondents No.1 & 2.

2. Admit. Mr. M.T.M. Hakim waives notice of admission for original claimants No.3 to 10.

3. The present Appeal is directed against the Judgment and the Award passed by the Tribunal in M.A.C. Petition No. 1442 of 2007, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.14,13,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 % p.a.

4. The short facts of the case are that on 8.2.2007, deceased Haji Yakub Abdul Sattar Pada and his son had gone to village Vadelav. At about 17.00 hours when Haji Yakub was standing on the road side along with his motor cycle, near bus-stand, one motor truck bearing No. G.R.Q. 6811 dashed with the deceased since the driver of the motor truck was unable to control the speed, which has resulted into serious accident and deceased sustained injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. Such accident gave rise to the claim petition, being M.A.C. Petition No. 1442 of 2007 for compensation of Rs.40,10,000/-. The Tribunal, at the conclusion of the claim petition, ultimately passed the above referred Judgment and the Award.

5. Under the circumstances, the present Appeal before this Court.

6. We have heard Mr. Nanavati, learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant and Mr. Hakim, learned Counsel, appearing for the respondents – original claimants by Caveat. We have also considered the Judgment and the reasons recorded by the Tribunal. We have considered the documentary evidence and the xerox copy of Pan Card of the deceased wherein the birth date of the deceased is mentioned as of “14.6.1946.”

7. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant was that the multiplier of “11” ought not to have been applied by the Tribunal since the deceased, based on the evidence of Pan Card for his birth date, could be said as aged 62 years, whereas the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the deceased was aged 52 to 54 years. It was submitted that if the age of the deceased is treated as that of 62 years then, in that case, as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of SARLA VERMA v/s DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, more particularly, the observation made in Para – 21, the appropriate multiplier would be “7” and not “11” as applied by the Tribunal.

8. Mr. Hakim, learned Counsel, appearing for the original claimants is not in a position to dispute the birth date of the deceased “14.6.1946” as mentioned in the Pan Card of the deceased. He is unable to dispute the legal position that since deceased was aged 62 years as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of SARLA VERMA (supra), the appropriate multiplier would be “7”

and not “11”.

9. We do find substance in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. When, as per Pan Card, the birth date of the deceased was 14.6.1946 and the date of the accident was 8.2.2007, the deceased would be aged about 61 years. Therefore, the multiplier as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of SARLA VERMA (supra) would be “7” and not “11” as observed by the Tribunal. Consequently towards the dependency benefit, the amount would come to Rs.4,53,600/- and not Rs.7,12,800/-.

10. The other benefits, as already awarded by the Tribunal, are not required to be interfered with since no contention is raised on behalf of the appellant.

11. Consequently, the amount of Rs. 2,59,200/- would be required to be deducted from the amount already awarded by the Tribunal and the net amount would come to Rs.11,53,800/-.

12. Under the circumstances, the Judgment and the Award passed by the Tribunal for granting compensation of the amount exceeding Rs.11,53,800/- is required to be quashed and set aside and hence the same is quashed and set aside. It is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to the compensation of Rs.11,53,800/- plus interest at the rate of 9 % p.a. as awarded by the Tribunal. The direction issued by the Tribunal for disburse