AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.A. Mohta, J.—Dissatisfied with the grant of claim of only Rs. 29000/- with interest at 6 per cent per annum granted to the legal heirs of the deceased Jethmal Panpalia in a Claim Petition No. 5 of 1981 decided on 10th September 1981 u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Amravati, the present appeal has been filed.
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Amravati, held Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and the driver Narendra Bharati, employed by it, responsible for the death of deceased Jethmal Panpalia on account of rash and negligent driving of a bus, rejecting several defences inter alia that of contributory negligence. A claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- was made. The respondents have not challenged the order passed by the Tribunal either by filing an appeal or cross-objection. The only point thus that falls for determination is whether the appellants are; entitled to enhancement of compensation and if yes, to what extent ?
The positions that emerge from evidence are:
(a) Jethmal was aged 35 years at the time of accident.
(b) He was married about 7 years back.
(c) He has two minor sons and two minor daughters.
(d) He had a kirana shop and a 14 acres of dry-land.
(e) He was living separate from the other brothers.
(f) He was the only earning member of the family.
(g) He had purchased out of the income, a new house at Pulgaon for consideration of Rs. 27,000/-.
(h) His personal expenses were Rs. 5000/- per year.
The only witness examined by the petitioners is PW 2 Godavaribai. Her unchallenged testimony that out of his own income Jethmal had purchased a house at Pulgaon and had taken out a life insurance policy for Rs. 15000/-shows that he was earning good income. According to Godavaribai, Jethmal was earning Rs. 25000/- per year from agriculture and kirana shop. In her cross-examination, she has stated that he was getting Rs. 15000/- from agriculture and that expenses on agriculture come to Rs. 10000/-. It is obvious that reference to income of Rs. 15000/-from agriculture is reference to the net income. Giving some allowance to exaggeration, it can safely be said that the net income from kirana shop as well as from agriculture would not be less than Rs. 15000/-. Personal expenses of Jethmal were Rs. 5000/- and thus, his contribution to the dependants could not be less than Rs. 10000/- per annum.
Life expectancy will have to be calculated minimum at 65 years. The application of multiplier 15 would be reasonable. Thus, the total contribution of the deceased to the dependants could be assessed at Rs. 1,50,000/-. Having regard to the fact that the amount ordered would be received in lumpsum, reduction of this amount to 50 per cent would be reasonable and so calculated in our judgment the compensation could not be less than Rs. 75,000/-.
Shri Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellants, is right when be contends that method of calculation adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous. This is how calculations are made:
Gross income from the land was Rs. 15000/-and after deducting the sum of Rs. 10000/- as expenses of cultivation and Rs. 5000/- as personal expenses of the deceased, the income from the agricultural land was zero. Jethmal however purchased house and this shows he was earning. The said income must be Rs. 3000/- being the minimum required. On the basis of multiplier of 10 Rs. 30000/- was the correct compensation.
Quite obviously, the above approach is erroneous. The calculation of Rs. 3000/- per year as income on the basis of requirement is basically erroneous. So is the case with application of multiplier of 10. There was no justification for that. The Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Suihakar and Ors. AIR 1977 SC 1189 has used multiplier of 20 in a case of a death of an earning wife aged 23 years with 58 as the age of retirement.
The other tests are also applied by the learned Tribunal on the basis of Rs. 3000/- as annual income. Our judgment that decision itself was erroneous, the other methods of calculation also cannot be supported. We must mention that in determining compensation in such cases it is nearly impossible to arrive at a very exact figure. All one has to aim at is to the minimum wrong.
All that remains is consideration of a grievance about the rate of interest. Section 110-CC of the Motor Vehicles Act grants discretion for awarding interest. In the case of Smt. Chamell Wati and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. 1986-4 Supreme Court Cases 503 12 per cent interest per annum has been considered to be reasonable and proper. Hence the rate of interest has also to be enhanced from 6 per cent to 12 per cent.
We must take note of the fact that a sum of Rs. 1000/-was paid as ex gratia payment. The said amount has been rightly deducted by the Tribunal. The same course will have to be adopted here also and, therefore, the order will be for payment of Rs. 74,000/-.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. Respondents do pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs. 74,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till payment along with proportionate costs throughout.