Chandrawati Devi vs Smt. Radhika Devi

Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.—This appeal is directed against the order dated 28th August, 2009 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, I, Bhojpur, Ara exercising the power of Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 11 of 2000, whereby on consideration the claimant''s case as also the evidence on record, allowed the claim for a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. The claimant on being aggrieved with the awarding of inadequate compensation has preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant is present. However, today being the second day of hearing of this appeal, no body has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that by the impugned order, the Tribunal while determining the amount of compensation adopted the multiplier taking into consideration the age of the claimant instead of the age of the deceased. The counsel submits that the detail of the facts leading to the death of the son of the claimant is not being repeated since the appellant is aggrieved only by the determination of the compensation. It is submitted that for calculating the compensation the Tribunal ought to have adopted the correct multiplier taking the age of the deceased and not the claimant. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, . It is further submitted that the Tribunal while calculating the compensation failed to allow compensation towards the loss of estate, consortium as also the funeral expenses.

Upon perusal of the record, it would appear that the son of the claimant namely, Jitendra Kumar aged about 17 years was dashed by a Jeep No. BR 44P-0511 on 08.11.1999 on Ara-Patna Road near Indu Mahila College while he was going on his scooter bearing registration no. BR-3-5079. The above jeep being driven by the driver rashly and negligently causing the death of the deceased. The Monthly income of the deceased was claim to be Rs. 1500/- as he was doing some business. The case was contested by the respondent-Insurance Company with whom the above Jeep was insured taking the plea that the driver was not having a valid license who did not appear in the case. The Tribunal, however, on considering the evidence on the record held that it is not in dispute that the jeep in question involved in the accident was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company as also that the son of the claimant namely, Jitendra Kumar died in the said accident. The Tribunal while calculating the amount of compensation took into consideration the age of the claimant as on the date of her deposition in the Court being 55 years and after taking view that the average age of Indian citizen as 60 years, and as such, held that the period of dependency of the claimant was of 5 years. Accordingly, on deduction of 1/3rd of the monthly income i.e. Rs. 1500/- the annual income was found to be Rs. 2000/- and multiplied by 5 being the period of dependency a compensation of Rs. 60,000/- was allowed. No amount was allowed towards the loss of estate, consortium as also the funeral expenses. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal while applying the multiplier should have taken the age of the deceased and not the claimant. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 17 years. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra) the Apex Court has directed that the multiplier table formulated in the said decision has to be adopted taking into consideration the age of the deceased as held in paragraph 42 of the aforesaid decision. As such following the above decision of the Apex Court, the correct multiplier in this case would be 18. Accordingly, the yearly income of the deceased on being taken as 12,000/-, the same is to be multiplied by 18 and thereupon a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards the loss of estate, Rs. 5000/- towards the loss of consortium and Rs. 2000/- towards the funeral expenses have to be added. The total amount of compensation so arrived shall carry simple interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the payment. Such payment be made within a period of three months after the award is prepared as per the present order.

In the result for the reasons and the discussions made above, the order under appeal with respect to the amount of compensation as allowed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. The Award shall accordingly be prepared.

The appeal stands disposed of. The lower Court''s record be sent down without delay.