Krishna and Others vs Rajinder Kumar and Others

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—This judgment will dispose of F.A.F.O. No. 671 of 1989 Krishna v. Rajinder Kumar and F.A.F.O. No. 684 of 1989 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishna which have arisen out of the common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, dated 12.1.1989 which in a claim petition filed u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act had awarded a sum of Rs. 4,42,680/- with 12 per cent per annum interest as compensation on account of the death of Ram Bhagat Singh who died in a road accident on 9.8.1987. For the purpose of judgment, the facts have been taken from F.A.F.O. No. 671 of 1989.

The brief facts which led to the filing of these two appeals are that on 9.8.1987, Ram Bhagat Singh, Ram Dayal Jindal and Dr. A.R. Rao were travelling in Maruti van No. DBY 707 from Hissar to Chandigarh. The van was driven by Umed Singh, the respondent No. 2, which was owned by Rajinder Kumar, respondent No. 1. The driver was plying the van at a very fast speed. At a little distance from Kaithal on Pehowa-Kaithal Road, the driver of the van lost its control. As a result thereof, the van swerved from the road and hit against a Kikkar tree and Ram Bhagat Singh and Ram Dayal Jindal died on the spot whereas Dr. A.R. Rao sustained serious injuries.

The claimants claimed Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rs. seven lakhs). The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal''), while disposing of the claim petition, vide its award dated 12.1.1989, held that the death of Ram Bhagat Singh was caused in the accident which had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of van No. DBY 707 by its driver Umed Singh, respondent No. 2. For calculating the dependency of the claimants on the deceased, the monthly income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 3,255/-. After deducting l/3rd out of this income as personal expenditure, the dependency on the deceased was determined at Rs. 2,170/- p.m. and by adopting a multiplier of 17, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 4,42,680/- with 12 per cent per annum interest as compensation as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment.

Against the said award, two appeals have been preferred, one by the claimants, i.e., Krishna and others, for enhancement of the compensation and another by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for setting aside the impugned award.

The Counsel for the claimants contended that there were six dependants of the deceased. The Tribunal had erred in deducting 1/3rd as personal expenditure from the monthly income of the deceased.

The Counsel for the Insurance Company had contended that the claimants have been awarded compensation more than their entitlement. Therefore, there is no scope for enhancement of the compensation. The total monthly income of the deceased as per pay certificate, Exh. A-4, was Rs. 3,255/- and the dependency of the claimants had rightly been assessed. The Counsel further contended that the compensation awarded to the claimants is on the higher side as the Tribunal had erred in applying a multiplier of 17 and as such the compensation is liable to be reduced.

After having perused the paper-book and considering the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties, I am convinced that the dependency of the claimants on the deceased has not been properly assessed. It has-been proved on record that as per pay certificate, Exh. A-4, the deceased was drawing Rs. 3,255/- as monthly salary while working as Assistant Librarian, Haryana Agriculture University, Hissar and the number of family members dependent upon him was seven. I am of the view that in a large family, the bread-earner of the family would keep his needs to the minimum and contribute maximum for the upkeep of his family. In this view of the matter, the deceased would be spending 1/4th on himself out of Rs. 3,255/- and the remaining amount on his family. In this manner, after deducting l/4th as personal expenditure of the deceased, the monthly dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 2,441/- and on this basis the annual dependency would be Rs. 29,292/- (Rs. 2441 x 12).

The other aspect of the matter is that while awarding compensation, the Tribunal had adopted a higher multiplier of 17 which is contrary to the ratio of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 ACJ 170 in which it was held as under:

For the purpose of calculating the just compensation annual dependency of the dependents should be determined in terms of the annual loss accruing to them due to the abrupt termination of life. For this purpose, annual earning of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount out of the same which he was spending for the maintenance of the dependents will be the determining factor. The basic figure will then be multiplied by a suitable multiplier;

The suitable multiplier as referred to above shall be determined by taking into consideration the number of years of the dependency of the various dependents, the number of years by which the life of the deceased was cut short and the various imponderable factors such like early natural death of the deceased, his becoming incapable of supporting the dependents due to illness or any other natural handicap or calamity, the prospects of the remarriage of the widow, the coming up of age of the dependents and their developing their independent sources of income as well as the pecuniary benefits which might accrue to the dependents on account of the death of the person concerned. Such benefits should not include the amount of the insurance policy of the deceased to which the dependents may become entitled on account of its maturity as a result of the death.

In that case, the deceased was a youngman of 23 years at the time of his death and while granting compensation, a multiplier of 16 was applied. Following the ratio of the decision in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 ACJ 170 the Tribunal ought to have applied a multiplier of 16. As such by applying a multiplier of 16, the claimants are held entitled to Rs. 4,68,672/- with 12 per cent per annum interest as compensation from the date of the claim petition. The Tribunal had rightly rejected the claim of Pyare Lal, father of the deceased being Class II heir. The amount of compensation shall be shared equally by the remaining six claimants. The amount of compensation already awarded by the Tribunal shall be adjusted. The share of the minor claimants shall be deposited in fixed deposit accounts in some nationalised Bank and they shall be entitled to withdraw the same on attaining their age of majority.

The award of the Tribunal is modified in the terms indicated above. Consequently, the appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. No order as to costs.