Kamli and Others vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others

J.K. Ranka, J—Instant appeal u/s. 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimants-appellants seeking enhancement of the award dt. 12/03/1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur in MAC case No. 1082/1992) by which a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,71,000/- has been awarded to the claimants-appellants.

Brief facts of the case are that on 07/05/1991, one Hanuman was travelling in a bus bearing No. RNP-1250 and when the bus reached near village Pipura, Hanuman fell down from front gate of the bus and sustained injuries which proved fatal and resultantly he died. It was claimed that driver of the vehicle (bus) was not in a proper state of mind, he was negligent who stopped the vehicle abruptly and therefore, Hanuman fell down. It was claimed that the deceased Hanuman was selling milk and was earning Rs. 100/- per day as he had several buffaloes and his income was claimed to be Rs. 3000/- per month.

The claimants-appellants submitted claim petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, after considering facts and circumstances, allowed a total claim of Rs. 1,71,000/- under all heads which is assailed by the appellants herein.

Counsel for the appellants contended that admittedly on account of negligence of the driver of the bus, the deceased fell down and suffered serious injuries and thereafter expired. He further contended that negligence of the driver has been proved. He further contended that the claim allowed is meager as certain factors have been ignored by the Tribunal while considering the claim petition. He raised following points:--

"(i) Adopting of income at Rs. 1500/- per month is too little for a person who had seven buffaloes and two cows and used to sell about 100 Kg. milk in a single day.

(ii) Future prospects have not been allowed.

(iii) The multiplier adopted at 13 is without considering even the schedule appended to the Motor vehicle Act when it should be 15 as per judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) ACJ 1298 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 : (2009) CLT 1055 : (2009) 6 JT 495 : (2009) 6 SCALE 129 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 5 UJ 2280 : (2009) AIRSCW 4992 : (2009) 3 Supreme 487 .

(iv) The deduction allowed is only 1/3 when there are more than six dependents and it should be 1/5th.

(v) No compensation has been awarded towards loss of love and affection and also consortium and if allowed, it is too low.

(vi) Funeral expenses have not been allowed at all."

Counsel submits that in view of the above, it is clear that the order of the Tribunal is perverse as even basic law has been ignored by the Tribunal.

Per-contra, counsel for the respondents contended that the evidence has been led that the deceased jumped from the bus of his own despite the conductor making him aware and it was his own mistake and negligence that he jumped from the bus and it was rather a suicide. He further contended that the amount allowed under various heads considering the fact that the incident is of 1991 and all facts necessary in a claim, have rightly been considered and the claim has been allowed appropriately and the order of the Tribunal, being just and proper, is not required to be interfered with.

I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material available on record.,

Admittedly, the Tribunal has taken into consideration that the driver was negligent in driving the vehicle and on account of negligence of the driver, the deceased Hanuman fell down from the bus and suffered serious injuries and expired. The respondent-corporation is not aggrieved by the said findings and such being a finding of fact, in my view, the claim of the respondent now that the deceased Hanuman was negligent is without any basis. In so far as the claim about merits is concerned, in my view, considering the fact that the deceased was having seven buffaloes and two cows even in the year 1991, in my view, at least the deceased, looking to the fact that he had large family, must be earning Rs. 2,500/- per month and accordingly, in my view, the income is assessed at Rs. 2,500/- per month and the claim will be computed taking into consideration the monthly income of Rs. 2,500/-

As per judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) (supra), looking to the age of the deceased being 40 years, which has been admitted by the Tribunal, the multiplier deserves to be applied at 15 and therefore, in my view, the multiplier of 15 is required to be applied.

In my view, since the deceased, though may not be having permanency of a job but certainly was having regular income by way of selling milk and as noticed above, had sufficient number of buffaloes and cows and was selling milk for last few years and therefore, it can be said that there was permanency of income. Accordingly, in my view, the future prospects, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 2 ACC 841 : (2013) ACJ 1403 : (2013) 3 CTC 883 : (2013) 8 JT 288 : (2014) 173 PLR 779 : (2013) 3 RCR(Civil) 170 : (2013) 6 SCALE 563 : (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2014) 1 SCC(L&S) 149 & Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, (2012) ACJ 1428 : AIR 2012 SC 2185 : (2012) 4 SCALE 559 : (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) AIRSCW 2892 : (2012) 3 Supreme 197 , is directed to be allowed at 30% of the total claim.

Admittedly, the deceased left his wife, four sons and a daughter as also old aged father and mother and therefore, the dependents being more than six, in my view, the deduction allowed at 1/3rd is without any justification and basis and, in my view, the deduction is required to be allowed at 1/5.

As regards the claim of the counsel that negligible amount has been allowed on account of loss of love and affection, funeral expenses etc., looking to the year of accident i.e. 1991, in my view, it would be appropriate to allow an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards consortium, love and affection for the wife and Rs. 10,000/- each to the children as also Rs. 10,000/- each to father and mother and funeral expenses is directed to be allowed at Rs. 7,500/-.

In view of the above, the compensation is recomputed as under:--

Accordingly, the total amount of Rs. 3,90,000/-, as aforesaid, is additionally computed/allowable/enhanced in the present appeal.

Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order/award dt. 12/03/1997 is modified to the extent that the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 3,90,000/- with interest @ 6% to be allowed from the date of filing of claim petition will be paid by the non-petitioners. Out of the above enhanced amount with interest so computed rounded off to the nearest thousands, the Tribunal shall deposit Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of wife of the deceased; Rs. 20,000/- each in the name of each child and Rs. 50,000/- in the name of father of the deceased and Rs. 50,000/- in the name of mother of the deceased in the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) in the nearest post office for a period of five years. The interest accruing on month to month basis will be deposited in the saving account with the same post office with permission to withdraw the monthly interest/quarterly interest as per the scheme of the post office. The balance of the remaining amount with interest would be disbursed to the wife by the Tribunal by bank draft/bankers cheque. It is made clear that the appellants will be allowed interest only as aforesaid of the enhanced amount so deposited in MIS and will not be allowed to take a loan on the same from the post office or raise loan on the said MIS. In the case of minor children, the MIS will be renewed from time to time till they become major. The above exercise to be done within two months. No costs.