Kamla and Others vs Rajasthan State and Others

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—This appeal is directed against the award dated 22.10.1984 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, whereby a sum of Rs. 42,000/- was awarded as compensation to the appellants. Feeling dissatisfied with the sufficiency of the amount of compensation the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

On 25.9.1983 at about 10.00 a.m. when Kartar Singh deceased was going on the road, a bus No. RRB 5682 belonging to Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur struck against him as a result of which he received injuries and later on died. His wife and children filed a claim petition for the death of Kartar Singh. It was found by the Tribunal that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of bus No. RRB 5682. After perusing the evidence, the Tribunal observed that at the time of death the deceased was of 40 years of age. He found the dependency of the appellants to the tune of Rs. 3,500/- per year and while applying a multiplier of 12 years a sum of Rs. 42,000/-was awarded as compensation. Since the petition was filed in forma pauperis, it was directed that the compensation amount be paid to the appellants after deducting the court fee leviable on the petition of Rs. 1,00,000/-, i.e., the amount claimed by the appellants before the Tribunal.

The counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the age of deceased Kartar Singh as 40 years. In fact, the age of the deceased was 35 years. He was working as an electrician and motor winder and was earning about Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,200/- per month. The Tribunal has erred in holding the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- per year and a multiplier of at least 20 years should have been applied. The counsel further contended that it has been found by the Tribunal that the yearly income of the deceased was Rs. 5,000/- and for the sake of argument even if this amount is assumed to be correct, 1/3rd of the said amount could not have been deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Lastly, the counsel contended that the interest on the amount of compensation should have been granted from the date of filing the claim application and not from the date of the award.

After hearing the counsel for the appellants and perusing the entire evidence on the record, 1 am of the considered view that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lesser side, Admittedly, the deceased was a motor winder, PW 3 Shiv Dayal has stated that Kartar Singh had worked with him for about two and a half years and when he had become acquainted with the work then he had started his separate work. He has categorically stated that the deceased used to attend some complaints and repair electric motors of the villagers and his income was Rs. 10,000/- per year. No doubt, while giving his own income between Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per year he has stated that his income includes the income from lathe machine which is between Rs. 300/-to Rs. 500/- per month and that Kartar Singh deceased had no lathe machine, but keeping in view the nature of the profession the deceased was doing before his death and the fact that he was a young man of about 35 years and that he must be having a good working capacity, his monthly income in no case can be expected to be below Rs. 700/-per month. Undisputedly, the deceased was survived by his wife and four children. Besides himself, he was looking after six members. He must not have been spending much amount on account of his personal expenses and applying a deduction of about 1/3d of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal is not at all justified. While taking his monthly income as Rs. 700/- and allowing a sum of Rs. 200/- on account of deduction towards his personal expenses, it is held that the monthly dependency of the appellants on the deceased was Rs. 500/-.

As regards the application of multiplier, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that since the deceased was of the age of about 40 years, a multiplier of 12 is sufficient. As per evidence on the record, the age of the deceased has been found to be between 35 years to 40 years. In my view, a multiplier of atleast 16 should have been applied in the present case.

It has now been well established that in motor vehicle accident cases, the interest on the amount of compensation should be granted from the date of the application and not from the date of the award, Once an application for claiming compensation is presented before the Tribunal, the time of its decision is not certain. One application may be decided in six months and the other may take three years. Why the claimants should be deprived of the interest for the period the court takes in settling the compensation to be awarded for the loss and damages caused to them. Therefore, I grant the interest on the amount of compensation to the appellants at the rate fixed by the Tribunal but from the date of the filing of the claim petition.

While taking the monthly dependency of the appellants on the deceased to the tune of Rs. 500/- and applying a multiplier of 16 years, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 96,000/-. I, accordingly, enhance the compensation to Rs. 96,000/-. The appellants shall also be entitled to 12 per cent interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. The appeal is, therefore, allowed with costs to the extent indicated above. Counsel''s fee Rs. 1,000/-.