Dhannalal and Another vs Raiskhan and Others

S.K. Dubey, J.—This is an appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short ''the Act'') for enhancement of the compensation from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- , which was awarded to the claimants, the unfortunate parents, who lost their earning son, aged 16 years, in a motor accident on 15.4.1984. An application u/s 110-A of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 60,000/- only from the owner, the driver and the insurer was presented before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore The application was registered as Claim Case No. 227 of 1987. As usual, the Respondent-non-applicants denied the allegations and/or right or entitlement to compensation. The Tribunal, after recording of evidence, held that the accident occurred by truck No. MBE 2072, when it dashed Girish, who was going by his bicycle from the G.P.O. Choraha to Navlakha on the Agra-Bombay Road, Indore. As a result of the dash, the boy died instantaneously. After having held the driver, the non-applicant No. 3, rash and negligent, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/- only to the parents. The Tribunal held in para 12 of its award that the boy aged 16 years was a student of Class 7th, who was also earning Rs. 250/- per month by working in the button factory. The Tribunal assessed the dependency of Rs. 100/- per month and deducted Rs. 150/- per month as expenses of the deceased on self. A 15 years'' multiplier was fixed, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was awarded with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the 1st of May, 1984, the date of presentation of the application till payment.

The facts of this case are not in much of dispute. The Appellants'' counsel, Mr. R.N. Dave, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is neither just nor is fair and is too low. He placed reliance on comparable cases reported in Gurmit Kaur v. Bhim Singh 1986 ACJ 96 (Delhi); Madhya Pradesh v. Shanti Bai 1986 ACJ 356 (MP) and Jayanti Prakash v. M.P.S.R.T. Corporation 1987 (1) MPWN 244. From the support of the reports of this Court, the Learned Counsel submitted that at least Rs. 200/- per month ought to have been arrived at as monthly dependency to the parents because a son coming from a family, whose financial status is not good, cannot afford to spend more than half of his income on his own self. If he could have spent that much amount on his own self, then there was no necessity to search for a job and to study side by side. He also contended that the multiplier of 15 years fixed was also not proper. The deceased was of 16 years of age, as such the minimum multiplier at least should have been of 20 years.

Mr. Swami, Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 4, i.e., the owner and the insurer, contended that the award is just and proper, no interference is called for in appellate jurisdiction as neither the award is inadequate nor too low. He also contends that no evidence has been led by the claimants about the expenses, which the deceased used to incur on his own self. As such the Tribunal has rightly determined the dependency. The other Respondents, though served, remained absent even after service and S.P.C. issued to them.

The only point for consideration before me is that how much compensation ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case. This is an admitted fact that the age of the father of the deceased was 42 years and that of his mother was 35 years at the time of accident. There is evidence in the case that the average longevity of the family of the deceased was 75 years. It is true that this has not come in evidence that what amount the deceased used to incur as expenditure on his own self, but the court has to make some guess about it. Looking to the financial status of the claimants, it cannot be inferred that the boy, who was studying and was also working, could afford to spend Rs. 150/- per month on his own self. In my opinion, the dependency of the parents, in the facts and circumstances of the case, on the guess work, would not be less than Rs. 150/- per month. The multiplier, as the boy was young and was studying and thereafter was to choose his career, cannot be less than 16 years. In cases where the deceased is less than 30 years of age, this Court has considered that the minimum multiplier should be of 16 years. [See State of M.P. and Another Vs. Ashadevi and Others, . Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the financial status of the deceased, the age of the parents, it would be just and proper to fix the multiplier of 16 years, and the dependency of Rs. 150/- per month. Rs. 150/- multiplied by twelve and by 16 comes to Rs. 28,800/- . In the opinion of this Court, the amount of Rs. 28,800/- would be the just and proper compensation to the Appellants for the death of their son Girish, who died in a motor accident. Hence I award Rs. 28,800/- and modify the award of the Tribunal from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 28,800/- . This amount shall also carry interest at the rate of l2 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation, as per the mandate of the apex court in Jagbir Singh and Others Vs. General Manager Punjab Roadways and Others, , and the consistent view of this Court.

The result is, the appeal is allowed, the award of the Claims Tribunal in respect of compensation and interest is modified as indicated above. The amount of compensation shall be paid by the insurance company within six weeks from today. Due adjustments shall, of course, be allowed to the insurance company for the payments already made, if any. Costs of the appeal are to be borne by the insurance company. Counsel''s fee Rs. 500/- , if certified.