R.P. Dholaria, J.1. This is an appeal by the appellants-original claimants, whereby, they have challenged the judgment and award rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Junagadh (the Tribunal for short) dated 04.03.2002 in MACP No. 707 of 1998, whereby, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,89,840/- along with interest for specific period.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on the date of the alleged incident, i.e. on 10.08.1993 all the applicants along with deceased Mulubhai had gone to Somnath and after visiting Somnath they were returning to Junagadh in Taxi Motor Car No. GTW-329 belonging to opponent No. 2 and driven by opponent No. 1. The said vehicle reached between village Vanthali and Junagadh and the front wheel of the car burst and deceased Mulubhai who was sitting inside the car had sustained serious injuries. On account of that the deceased sustained grave injuries and expired during the course of treatment on 26.08.1993. Hence, the original claimants being the heirs of the deceased Mulubhai filed the aforesaid claim petition, wherein, the Tribunal passed the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal.

3. Heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

4. Learned Advocate Shri Amar Mithani for the original claimants, submitted that the Tribunal committed a grave error in passing the impugned judgment and award, inasmuch as it failed to appreciate the material on record. He submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration rise in income of the deceased in future, while calculating the amount of compensation. He submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenses as it is grossly on the lower side, because the deceased was initially treated in the private hospital. He, therefore, prayed that the order of the Tribunal be suitably modified by allowing the present appeal.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate Ms. Hina Desai for Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company, strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award after taking into consideration the entire material on record, and hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court and the present appeal be dismissed.

6. None of the parties have challenged the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal so far as the aspect of negligence is concerned on the part of the driver and owner of the vehicle No. GTW- 329 involved in the accident. In that view of the matter this Court is called upon to only decide whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper or not.

7. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the claimants have narrated in the petition that the deceased was engaged in the business of Farsan and in order to prove the income of the deceased, the original claimants have not produced any documents. So far as the occupation of the deceased is concerned, there appears no dispute, but in absence of any documentary evidence so far as his age is concerned and considering the date of the accident, his income easily be presumed at Rs. 1,500/- that can even otherwise also comparable to minimum rate fixed at the prevailing time. Therefore, the income of the deceased is to be considered at Rs. 1,500/- per month. In above view of the matter here, it would be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in "SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR." reported in , (2009) 6 SCC 121 [LQ/SC/2009/869] , wherein, the Apex Court has laid down the principles of just and proper compensation and general guidelines for considering the prospective income of the deceased while adopting addition of 50% of his actual income at the time of accident as the deceased was below 40 years of age. In that view of the matter, while adding 50% addition in the income of the deceased it would come to Rs. 2,250/- per month.

8. Now, from the aforesaid amount of monthly income, the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased is required to be deducted. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS (Supra), and taking into consideration that there are five claimants, 1/4 amount is required to be deducted from the aforesaid amount. Thus, on deducting the 1/4 amount from the amount of loss of dependency, the net monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 1700 [Rs. 2250-Rs. 550(i.e. 1/4 deduction towards personal expenses)]. Therefore, the annual or yearly loss of income or dependency would come to (Rs. 1,700 X 12=) 20,400/-. Further, in order to prove the age of the deceased Mulubhai, neither documentary evidence is available nor any other document is available on the record. However, in the petition the age of the deceased is mentioned as 32 years. Learned Advocate Ms. Desai invited the attention of this Court that in the petition itself the age of the widow of the deceased has been recorded as 35 years. In that view of the matter, in absence of any documentary evidence the age of the deceased may be considered in the age group between 35 and 40 years. Meaning thereby, on the date of the alleged accident, the deceased was aged about 35 years. In view of decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others (Supra), the Apex Court has provided a table laying down as to what shall be the just and proper multiplier. Applying the same to the facts of this case, since the deceased was aged about 35 years, the proper multiplier would be 15. Thus, on applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency or future income to the claimants would come to Rs. (20,400 X 15)=3,06,000/-.

9. Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards treatment and medical charges whereas, it has awarded Rs. 1,000/- towards transportation charges. However, while doing so the Tribunal overlooked the fact that the alleged incident had taken place on 10.08.1993, whereas, the deceased succumbed to the injuries, while undergoing treatment, on 26.08.1993. Meaning thereby, the deceased had to remain hospitalized and had to undergo treatment for nearly about seventeen days, before he expired. Hence, in view of the catena of decisions of this Court as well as of the Apex Court, if, the original claimants are awarded total amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards the loss of consortium, pain, shock and suffering and funeral expenses etc., it would be just and proper.

10. So far as the amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards the loss of expectation of life is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded the aforesaid amount on the lower side. Therefore, Rs. 20,000/- should be awarded towards loss of expectation of life. Further, under the head of funeral expenses the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,000/- and hence the same does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. In the same manner, the rate of interest at the rate of 9% should be awarded taking into consideration the current repo rate.

11. In view of the above, in short, the appellants-original claimants shall be entitled to the following amounts towards compensation;

12. The Tribunal has already awarded an amount Rs. 1,89,840/- to the original claimants, and therefore, the original claimants shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. [(3,48,000 - 1,89,840 (i.e. the amount already awarded by the Tribunal)] : Rs. 1,58,160/-.

13. In the result, this first appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED. The appellants-original claimants shall be paid an additional amount of Rs. 1,58,160/- towards compensation, over and above the amount of Rs. 1,89,840/- already awarded by the Tribunal along with 9% interest per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition, till its realization. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 04.03.2002 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited with the concerned Tribunal within a period of THREE MONTHS from today. On being deposition of the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal is directed to pay 40% of the total amount of compensation to the Respondent No. 1 and 15% of the total amount of compensation to the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 each. No order as to costs. R&P be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.