Durjan and Others vs Ashok Kumar and Others

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—This is claimants'' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short, ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 03.09.2002, passed in Claim Case No. 172/2002.

As against the compensation of Rs. 12,36,000/- claimed by the Appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents and brother of deceased Virendra @ Jitendra Dhruv by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 27.04.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,06,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

Shri D.R. Minz, learned Counsel for the Appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants'' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs. 1,300/- per month; in selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 1,06,000/- only.

Shri Deepak Gupta, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 The New India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs. 1,06,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the claimants could not establish any regular income of the deceased.

True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Virendra @ Jitendra Dhruv used to earn Rs. 100/- per day as Mason, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants'' evidence about the income of the deceased.

Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,300/- per month is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration.

The Tribunal while discarding the claimants'' evidence about the income of the deceased ought to have assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum was prescribed in the Second Schedule u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1994. The accident in the present case, wherein deceased Virendra @ Jitendra Dhruv lost his life, took place in the year 2001. If the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2001, the year of accident in the present case, are taken into consideration, the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year 1994 would certainly come to Rs. 30,000/- in the year 2001. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 30,000/- per annum.

As the claimants are parents and brother of the deceased and the deceased at the time of the accident was un-married and after his marriage, his contribution to the parents and brother would have been reduced substantially, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. The claimants'' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs. 15,000/- per annum.

The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal considering that the claimants are parents and brother of the deceased cannot be found fault with in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Shri Laxman Iyer and Another, , wherein it has been held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10.

By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 15,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- as compensation for the death of Virendra @ Jitendra Dhruv in the motor accident on 27-04-2001.

Learned Counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself.

The accident in the present case, wherein deceased Virendra @ Jitendra Dhruv lost his life took place in the year 2001; the claim petition was filed by the claimants in the year 2001; the impugned award was passed by the Tribunal in the year 2002; the present appeal was filed by the Appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation in the year 2002; and the appeal is being finally decided in the year 2009. Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 54,000/- at Rs. 6,000/-.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the Appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 1,06,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,60,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs. 6,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 54,000/-.

Respondent No. 3 The New India Insurance Company Limited, is granted three months'' time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 60,000/- (Rs. 54,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 6,000/- towards the quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 54,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal.

No order as to costs.