Girish Chandra Patanayak and Others vs Kishore Kumar and Others

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—This is claimants'' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short "the Tribunal) vide award dated 3-5-2000, passed in Claim Case No. 48/97.

The claimants, unfortunate parents and younger brother of deceased Priyadarshi Patnayak claimed compensation of Rs. 20,10,000/- for his death in the motor accident on 22-12-1996, when the Jeep bearing registration No. M.K.I./0950 in which he was travelling met with an accident with a stationary Truck bearing registration No. B.E.M./7444, resulting in multiple serious injuries to Priyadarshi Patnayak who succumbed to those injuries on way to the hospital. The claimants further pleaded that deceased Priyadarshi Patnayak used to earn Rs. 7,300/- per month as Probationary Officer in Dena Bank.

The owner and driver of the Jeep and the owner, driver and insurer of the Truck contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants.

The claimants examined Girish Chand Patanayak (A.W. 1), V.S. Rao (A.W. 2) and R.K. Solanki (A.W. 3) in support of their claim whereas the respondents examined Jitendra Kumar (N.A.W. 1) and Kishore Kumar (N.A.W. 2) in rebuttal.

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties held that deceased Priyadarshi Patnayak died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 22-12-1996; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles Jeep and Truck; as the Truck was insured on the date of the accident with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., the Insurance Company was liable to pay 50% of the amount of the compensation to the claimants and the balance 50% of the compensation was payable by the owner and driver of the Jeep.

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,500/- per month. By deducting about 1/3rd of Rs. 6,500/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants'' dependency was assessed at Rs. 4,000/- per month and Rs. 48,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 48,000/- with the multiplier of 12, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 5,76,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2,000/- for loss of love and affection. The Tribunal thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 5,80,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Priyadarshi Patnayak in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest @11% per annum on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 5,80,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

Shri Pravin Tulsiyan, the 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. 6,500/- per month only; in assessing the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 4,000/- per month only; in selecting lower multiplier of 12; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 5,80,000/- only.

Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Ghanshyam Patel, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding substantial compensation of Rs. 5,80,000/- to the claimants.

The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of the salary certificate adduced in evidence before the Tribunal and the evidence of V.S. Rao (A.W. 2).

On due consideration, we are satisfied that the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs. 6,500/- per month does not suffer from any infirmity.

The claimants dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting about 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses.

The multiplier of 12 selected by the Tribunal is rather on higher side, 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 was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10. That apart, in the present case, claimant No. 1-Girish Chand Patanayak, father of deceased Priyadarshi Patnayak, was 59 years of age on the date of the accident. As such, even according to the Second Schedule u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act the appropriate multiplier would have been 8 which is applicable to the age group between 55 years and 60 years.

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the income of the deceased or the claimants dependency assessed by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected.

The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.