Abates as per Exhibit. 50 and Others vs Shrirang Gulabrav Ghumar and Others

J.C. Upadhyaya, J.—Challenge in this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994 [for short ''the Act''] is to the judgment and award dated 19/12/1997 rendered in M.A.C. Petition No. 348 of 1988 with M.A.C.P. No. 536 of 1988 by the Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Aux.-IV], Kheda at Nadiad [for short ''the Tribunal''], whereby so far as M.A.C.P. No. 348 of 1988 is concerned, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,41,000/ - by way of compensation to the appellants herein, who were original claimants in the said claim petition with running interest at the rate of 15% p.a., from the date of the said claim petition till realization with proportionate costs thereof. The Tribunal further directed that the respondents herein who were original opponents in the aforesaid claim petition, shall pay the aforesaid compensation with interest jointly and severally. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal that the amount awarded by way of compensation is on lower side and inadequate, the original claimants preferred this appeal.

The facts leading to the claim petition, in brief, are that the vehicular accident occurred on 13/1/1988 between scooter bearing Registration No. GBV 6800 and Truck bearing Registration No. MHQ 3287 near Vasad on National Highway No. 8. Deceased Rajendrabhai Narsinhbhai, son of appellant - claimant No. 1 and husband of appellant - claimant No. 2 and deceased Jagdishkumar Vallabhdas were proceeding on the scooter and at the place of accident, the truck which came from the opposite direction driving rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed with the scooter and both the occupants of the scooter sustained serious injuries and both of them succumbed to the injuries.

2.1. As per the case of the appellants - claimants, deceased Rajendrabhai was aged about 27 years at the time of his death and that he was deriving income from two sources, namely he was serving in Mahalaxmi Pulse Mill and was getting Rs. 1,500/ - per month by way of salary as well as he was cultivating agricultural lands of his father, mother and aunt and he was getting his share from the agricultural income. Accordingly, the appellants - claimants in M.A.C.P. No. 348/1988 claimed Rs. 20 lacs by way of compensation.

Before the Tribunal, the claim petition came to be contested by respondent - opponent No. 3 - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., by filing written statement at exh. 21, wherein, in short, the negligence on the part of the driver of the truck was denied. The age, nature of profession, income, etc., of the deceased Rajendrabhai was also denied.

The Tribunal consolidated both the claim petitions, namely M.A.C. Petition No. 348 of 1988 and M.A.C. Petition No. 536 of 1988 and common evidence was recorded and by impugned judgment and award dated 19/12/1997, both the claim petitions came to be disposed of by the Tribunal. However, as stated above, the claimants of M.A.C. Petition No. 348 of 1988 felt that the amount awarded by way of compensation was on lower side and was inadequate and, therefore, the instant appeal came to be preferred.

Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the amount awarded by way of compensation is on lower side and inadequate. The Tribunal only took into consideration the income derived by the deceased by way of salary, but did not take into consideration the income which the deceased derived as an agriculturist. Mr. Modi, learned advocate for the appellants assailed the judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal on the count that the Tribunal did not consider future prospective income of the deceased though at the time of accidental death, the deceased was aged about 27 years. Mr. Modi, learned advocate for the appellants further submitted that the claimants examined appellant No. 3 - original claimant No. 2 - Bhanumatiben before the Tribunal and produced relevant documents like extracts of revenue records of agricultural lands cultivated by the deceased as well as the agreements entered into between the deceased and the owners of the land whereby 50% share of the agricultural income derived from the agricultural land was agreed to be paid to the deceased. Resultantly, it is submitted that the appeal may be allowed and just and appropriate amount of compensation be awarded to the appellants - claimants.

Per contra, Mr. R.M. Meena, learned advocate representing Insurance Company, vehemently opposed this appeal and submitted that the Tribunal did not commit any error in considering the income by way of salary which the deceased was earning. It is submitted that considering the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has observed that the documents like the agreements allegedly entered into between the deceased and owners of the land were concocted documents and rightly not relied upon those documents. It is submitted that as per the salary slips produced by the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs. 1,500/ - per month by way of salary, yet the Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/ - p.m. Therefore, it is submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants - claimants is just and reasonable amount and cannot be said to be on lower side.

6.1. Ultimately, it is submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.

We have considered the submissions advanced by Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned advocate for the appellants - claimants and Mr. R.M. Meena, learned advocate representing respondent - opponent No. 3 - the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. We have examined the record and proceedings of M.A.C. Petition No. 348 of 1988 in context with the submissions made by the rival side.

Considering the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal, so far as the vehicular accident is concerned, the Tribunal, appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the vehicular accident occurred between the truck and scooter on account of sole rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. It is pertinent to note that neither the insurance company nor driver/owner of the truck preferred any appeal nor any cross appeal is preferred challenging the judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal. Therefore, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal that the vehicular accident occurred on account of sole rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck had attained finality and even otherwise, considering the evidence on record, we find no illegality or any irregularity committed by the Tribunal in arriving at such conclusion.

Re-appreciating, re-analyzing and re-evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on record, there is no dispute that deceased Rajendrabhai was serving in Mahalaxmi Pulse Mills and as per the salary slip produced on record, his monthly salary was Rs. 1,500/ -. Considering the evidence of the widow of the deceased, she stated that over and above the service, the deceased was cultivating the agricultural land of her father-in-law, mother-in-law and aunt and the owners of the lands had agreed to pay 50% share of the agricultural income to the deceased. Mr. Modi, learned advocate for the appellants - claimants stated that considering bills and vouchers showing the sale of the crops to different agricultural market committees, the annual income which the deceased derived as an agriculturist was Rs. 75,000/ - p.a. Mr. Modi, learned advocate for the appellants relied upon the documentary evidence like the agreements entered into between the deceased and the owners of the lands, so also the bills and receipts showing sale of the crops to different societies.

Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and as stated above, so far as the income derived by the deceased by way of salary is concerned, there is no dispute. However, so far as agricultural income is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the lands which, according to the claimants, the deceased used to cultivate were his family lands, namely the lands belonging to his parents and aunt. In the aforesaid background, the Tribunal rightly did not rely upon the agreements entered into between the deceased and his parents and aunt, referring the share of the agricultural income of the deceased. However, the Tribunal considered the actual monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/ -. Perusing the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal, it is clear that the deceased was aged about 27 years. However, while determining the quantum of compensation under the head of loss to the dependency benefits, the Tribunal did not take into consideration the future prospective income of the deceased. Considering his income derived from salary as well as the fact that deceased was cultivating his family lands by rendering his special skill and expertise as an agriculturist and considering the expenditure which the deceased was required to incur while cultivating the agricultural lands and the fact that the deceased died in the accident in the year 1988, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal should have taken into consideration future prospective income of the deceased and accordingly, it would be in the interest of justice if the additional future prospective monthly income is considered to be Rs. 750/ -. Deducting 1/3rd amount of the self expenses which the deceased would have incurred had he been alive, from Rs. 750/- per month, the net additional monthly dependency benefit comes to Rs. 500/- [Rs. 750 - Rs. 250 = Rs. 500/ -]. Thus, the annual loss to the additional future dependency benefits would come to Rs. 6,000/ -. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17 years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the age of the deceased and relying upon the decision rendered in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2010 [1] G.L.R. 17 delivered by Hon''ble the Apex Court, the Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier of 17 years for the deceased, who was aged about 27 years. Thus, accordingly, the additional future loss to the dependency benefits would come to Rs. 1,02,000/- [Rs.6,000 x 17 = Rs. 1,02,000/ -], making rounded of, it would come to Rs. 1,00,000/ -. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the claimants are entitled to get additional amount of compensation at Rs. 1,00,000/- together with running interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of the claim petition till the realization on the additional amount of compensation. Other amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the count of loss of expectation of life, loss of consortium and transportation and funeral charges, etc., appears to be just and reasonable.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal partly succeeds and accordingly it is partly allowed. The appellants original claimants are entitled to recover Rs. 1,00,000/ - [Rupees one lac only] by way of compensation in addition to what was awarded vide impugned judgment and award dated 19/12/1997 rendered in M.A.C. Petition No. 348 of 1988 by the Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Aux. IV], Kheda at Nadiad, with running interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization on the additional amount of compensation with proportionate costs thereon. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the additional amount of compensation together with interest and proportionate costs to the appellants - claimants in equal share.

The respondents - original opponents shall deposit jointly and/or severally the additional amount of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/ - together with interest and proportionate costs referred to hereinabove, within 8 [eight] weeks hereof, with the Tribunal.

Modified award to be drawn up accordingly.