Agasiya Bai and Others vs Arjun Das and Others

Goutam Bhaduri, J—Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 16.07.2012, passed in Claim Case No. 86/2010, by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, whereby as against the claim made for Rs. 15,00,000/-, an award of Rs. 2,02,500/- was passed. The appeal is by the claimants.

Briefly stated facts of the case as pleaded by the claimants are that on 29.03.2009, few persons namely Banmali Baiga, Rajaram Gond, indersingh and others had went from Lamni forest to Kanha, Madhya Pradesh for training and they were coming back to Lamni on vehicle Bolero bearing registration No. C.G.-10-F/4662. The vehicle wherein they were coming was driven by one Arjun Das, the non-applicant No. 1 and while driving such vehicle by rash and negligent manner, it dashed against the tree, whereby five persons died. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased Rajaram Gond, who was aged about 32 years, was working as tourist guide in Lamni Forest Division and was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. Therefore, on the different heads, the claim petition was filed by the mother, father, and brother of the deceased.

The non-applicant No. 1, driver of the vehicle denied the averments of the claim petition and stated that the claim has been inflated. It was further stated that at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven in moderate speed and since the roads were quite narrow and in order to save the cycle rider, the vehicle dashed against the tree.

The owner of the vehicle, non-applicant No. 2, also denied the claim of the claimants and it was stated that at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle had valid driving license, therefore, since the vehicle was insured with non-applicant No. 3, the entire compensation is to be paid by the respondent No. 3.

The learned Tribunal after evaluating the entire evidence has awarded Rs. 2,02,500/-, therefore, the instant appeal is filed by the claimants for enhancement.

The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in this case, the Claims Tribunal has failed to grant just compensation. He would further submit that neither the future prospects has been awarded nor compensation on other heads has not been awarded and the compensation awarded, is too meager, which needs reconsideration. Therefore, he prays for enhancement of the award.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company vehemently opposes the argument and supported the order passed by the learned Claims Tribunal and would submit that the order is well merited which do not call for any interference.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the documents and the evidence on record.

The learned Tribunal after believing the statement of eye witness, Fundilal (AW-2), has come to a conclusion that at the relevant time, the vehicle, wherein the deceased were traveling was being driven by the non-applicant No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner and thereby it dashed against the tree. In absence of any challenge to the said finding, the same is affirmed.

Now coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has assessed the yearly income of the deceased to Rs. 36,000/- per annum. Though the statement has been made that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as tourist guide in Lamni Forest Division and was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month, but nothing has been placed on record so as to substantiate such salary and therefore, in absence thereof, the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs. 36,000/- per annum can not be faulted - with and it can be reasonably accepted.

Reading of the award would reflect that the Claims Tribunal has further not added the future prospects in such income. Taking into the age of the deceased at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 32 years and as per the law laid down in case of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 2 ACC 841 : (2013) ACJ 1403 : (2013) 3 CTC 883 : (2013) 8 JT 288 : (2014) 173 PLR 779 : (2013) 3 RCR(Civil) 170 : (2013) 6 SCALE 563 : (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2014) 1 SCC(L&S) 149 , I think it proper to add the future prospects of 50% over and above the income of Rs. 36,000/- towards future prospects.

The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 11 taking the age of the claimants, who are dependents. Hon''ble the Supreme Court in case of Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2012) ACJ 2002 : (2012) 6 JT 301 : (2012) 4 RCR(Civil) 343 : (2012) 11 SCC 738 and further in case of M. Mansoor and Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Another, (2014) 1 ABR 232 : (2013) 4 ACC 45 : (2013) ACJ 2849 : (2013) 13 JT 427 : (2014) 173 PLR 628 : (2013) 4 RCR(Civil) 729 : (2013) 12 SCALE 324 , while selecting the multiplier has taken into account the age of deceased. The Supreme Court while deciding the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2012) ACJ 2002 : (2012) 6 JT 301 : (2012) 4 RCR(Civil) 343 : (2012) 11 SCC 738 has considered various case law at para 15 of its decision and thereafter has laid down the principle that the selection of multiplier should be based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of age of the dependents. The reasons have been assigned that since there may be number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different, therefore, the age of the dependents has no nexus. Further in case of M. Mansoor and Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Another, (2014) 1 ABR 232 : (2013) 4 ACC 45 : (2013) ACJ 2849 : (2013) 13 JT 427 : (2014) 173 PLR 628 : (2013) 4 RCR(Civil) 729 : (2013) 12 SCALE 324 , the Apex Court has again considered the fact and has laid down that even if the person is bachelor and is dead, the principles laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) ACJ 1298 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 : (2009) CLT 1055 : (2009) 6 JT 495 : (2009) 6 SCALE 129 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 5 UJ 2280 : (2009) AIRSCW 4992 : (2009) 3 Supreme 487 , shall be applicable meaning thereby the multiplier would be on the basis of the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the dependents.

In this case, admittedly the deceased was bachelor aged about 32 years and therefore, applying the principles laid down in case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) ACJ 1298 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 : (2009) CLT 1055 : (2009) 6 JT 495 : (2009) 6 SCALE 129 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 5 UJ 2280 : (2009) AIRSCW 4992 : (2009) 3 Supreme 487 , there would be deduction of 50%. Thereafter, considering the age of the deceased as he was shown to be 32 years as would be evident from postmortem report, Ex. P/7, multiplier of 16 would be applicable.

Further the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate and Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses, which appears to be too meager and requires re-consideration. Consequently, for loss of estate and for love and affection for mother and father, a consolidated sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded and for funeral expenses an amount of Rs. 15,000/- is further awarded.

Therefore, the compensation is recomputed as under:--

Thus the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 4,97,000/-. After deducting Rs. 2,02,500/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 2,94,500/-.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellants will be entitled to the said sum of Rs. 2,94,500/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced claim amount from the date of enhancement till the date of its realization.

The Registry is further directed "to communicate the claimants in writing the "amount enhanced in this appeal" as against the award made by the Tribunal below. The said communication be made in Hindi Devanagari language. No order as to costs.