Gokul Prasad Tripathi and Others vs Vishwanath Prasad Vyask and Others

U.C. Maheshwari, J.—The appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (In short ''the Act'') for enhancement of the sum awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rewa, in Claim case No. 93/08 vide award dated 26.2.2009 whereby, the claim of the appellants with respect of death of their son Sanjeev Tripathi, aged about 20 years in a vehicular accident has been awarded against the respondents No. 1 to 3 by saddling their joint and several liability to indemnify the sum of Rs. 3,15,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition with some penal clause also in this regard if the amount is not paid within the prescribed period.

The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the appellants herein filed their claim before the Tribunal contending that on 19.1.2008 at about 2.45 in the noon, his son Sanjeev Tripathi aged about 20 years was going on his motorcycle to look after his business at Semaria bus stand, Rewa. On the way, he was dashed by the offending vehicle bearing registration no. MKA-3258 driven by the respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner resultantly, he fell down and sustained the injury and died on the spot On receiving such information, the criminal offence was registered against the respondent No. 1 at Police Station Semariya. After holding investigation, he was charge-sheeted for the offence u/s 304 of I.P.C. Subsequently after obtaining the requisites papers from such criminal case, the appellants being parents and dependents of the deceased filed their claim contending that the deceased being an educated person, was working as Manager in the Office of Goutam Travels, Rewa Branch at Semariya, from where he was getting the salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month. As per further averments, the offending vehicle was duly registered in the name of respondent no.2 while, the same was insured in the name of respondent no.5. With these pleadings, the appellants have filed their claim for the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and also for interest on it.

In reply of respondent No. 1 & 2, by denying the averments of the claim petition, it is stated that the alleged accident was not the cause and consequence of rash and negligent driving of the alleged vehicle by the respondent no. 1. The alleged accident was the consequence of the driving of some other vehicle. Subsequently, by fabricating the false story, the allegation were made against the respondent no. 1. In such premises, the prayer for dismissal of the claim petition is made and in alternative it is stated that on holding any liability against them, then the same be saddled against the respondent No.3/Insurer, as the offending bus was duly insured with it.

In reply of respondent No.3/Insurer by admitting the insurance of the alleged bus with it, it is stated that on the date of the incident the respondent No. 1 was driving the offending bus without having effective driving licence accordingly, the same was plight contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, the liability to indemnify the claim could not be saddled against it. It is also stated that the deceased was neither educated nor was the Manager in the alleged travel agency, by making the false averments in this regard, the claim is filed on higher side. It is also stated that the deceased was also not having the effective driving licence to ride the motorcycle and in any case, without impleading the registered owner and the insurance Company of the motorcycle as party in the impugned claim, the same is not tenable. With these pleadings, the prayer for dismissal of the claim is made.

In view of pleadings of the parties, after framing the issues and recording the evidence, on appreciation of the same it was held that said Sanjeev Tripathi died in the alleged road accident, happened because of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no. 1., and holding the income of the deceased Rs. 5,000/- per month, and on that basis after making the assessment the claim of the appellants was awarded for the abovementioned sum. Being aggrieved by such quantum, the appellants'' have come to this Court for further enhancement of the same.

Shri Harpreet Singh Ruprah, learned appearing counsel of the appellants after taking me through pleadings, available evidence and the exhibited documents and also by referring the case law in the matter of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, said that according to such cited case in the available circumstances, the Tribunal had to carry out the assessment of the quantum by adopting the multiplier of 18, instead the multiplier of 15. In this manner, the Tribunal has committed apparent error in awarding the claim to the appellants in lower side, and prayed to enhance the awarded sum accordingly by adopting the multiplier of 18 by allowing this appeal.

The aforesaid prayer is opposed by the counsel of the respondent No.3 saying that the sum awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, it does not require further enhancement at the stage of appeal and prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

Having heard the counsel keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone through the record of the Tribunal, the averments of the appeal memo and also perused the impugned award.

It is noted that on behalf of appellants except to adopt the multiplier of 18 at the place of 15 to carry out the assessment of the compensation the impugned award has not been challenged against any other findings of the Tribunal. In such premises, this appeal does not require any consideration to reconsider the evidence for fixing or assessing the monthly income of the deceased. In such circumstances this Court has to answer the only question whether the multiplier which was adopted by the Tribunal for assessing the compensation, is in accordance with the principle laid down by the apex Court in the matter of Sarla Verma and others (supra) or not.

In the aforesaid cited case of Sarla Verma and others (supra) the apex Court has categorically directed that if the claimants are parents, then after assessing the income of the deceased, Court has to deduct 50% sum from such assessed income with respect of the expenses of the deceased which would have spent by him, had he been alive and thereafter, keeping in view the age of the deceased Court has to adopt the multiplier provided in the cited decision to work out the total dependency to award the claim. In such premises, the Court had no option except to adopt the multiplier relating to the age of deceased even in the matter of parents also. In view of said principle of Sarla Verma and others (supra), on examining the case at hand, it is apparent that after assessing the income of the deceased Rs. 60,000/- per annum out of that 2/3rd was deducted by the Tribunal on the head of the expenses of the deceased which would have spent by him, had he been alive, and thereafter, by adopting the multiplier of 15, lower side and contrary to case of Sarla Verma (supra) the claim has been awarded by the Tribunal along with the sum under the traditional heads like funeral and other relevant heads for the sum as stated above. So apparently, in view of principle of Sarla Verma and others (supra), the Tribunal has committed error in applying the principle of deduction correctly and also committed error in adopting the multiplier of 15 at the place of 18. In such premises, I am of the considered view that the impugned award requires some modification for enhancement of the sum at this stage.

In view of the aforesaid discussions now I proceed to assess the correct dependency of the appellants. Thus, taking into consideration the income of the deceased held by the Tribunal at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month, in such premises, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 60,000/-. Keeping in view that the claimants are parents, then out of the assessed income 50% sum on account of the expenses of the deceased as stated above is deducted then, dependency comes upto 30,000/- per annum and on applying the multiplier of 18, the total dependency comes to (Rs. 30,000x 18)= 5,40,000/-. Besides this, the appellants are also entitled for Rs. 15,000/- on the head of funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and the loss of estate of the deceased. Accordingly, the assessed compensation comes to Rs. 5,55,000/-.

In view of the aforesaid by allowing this appeal in part, the amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 3,15,000/- is enhanced from such sum to the sum of Rs. 5,55,000/- (Rs. Five lacs fifty five thousand) and the same is awarded. Besides this, the appellants shall also be entitled to get the interest on the enhanced sum at the rate of Rs. 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition in the Tribunal. Till this extent, the impugned award of the Tribunal is modified while, other findings of the Tribunal are hereby affirmed.

In the available circumstances, there shall be no order as to the costs.

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.