Mangli Bai vs Meghnath Dhruv and Others

A.K. Patnaik, C.J.—This is an appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 18th August, 1992 in Claim Case No. 83 of 1991 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur.

The facts briefly are that on 31st May, 1991 at about 7.00 a.m. Banshilal Kewat working as a labourer in truck No. MP 23 B 3043 got killed when the truck met with an accident and toppled. The truck was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited/respondent No. 3. The mother of deceased Banshilal Kewat namely Smt. Mangli Bai filed the aforesaid claim case before the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur claiming compensation of Rs. 3,05,000 (Rupees three lakh five thousand only) from the owner of the truck as well as the aforesaid Insurance Company. But by the impugned award, the said Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 69,120 (Rupees sixty-nine thousand one hundred and twenty only) with interest @ 12% per annum calculated from the date of application.

Mr. Ashok Soni, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the age of the deceased was only 25 years at the time of death and therefore the multiplier of 17 should have been applied. But the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 16. He further submitted that the income of the deceased should have been taken as Rs. 30 per day and, therefore, the same would have worked out at Rs. 900 per month. But the Tribunal has adopted a lower income of the deceased and has taken a dependency of Rs. 400 per month which is on the lower side.

Mr. Vinay Harit, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mrs. Preeti Budhia, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, on the other hand, submitted that the deceased was unmarried and the age of the mother of the deceased was 42 years at the time of the death of the deceased and the Tribunal has taken the multiplier of 16 keeping in mind the age of the mother of the deceased. He further submitted that even if the income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 900 per month, since the deceased and his mother were two adults, the dependency would work out to 2/4 i.e. half of the income and so calculated the dependency worked out at Rs. 450 per month and not Rs. 750 as claimed by the appellant in the appeal memorandum.

Mr. Vinay Harit is right that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal cannot said to be wrong. In case of unmarried deceased, the age of the deceased is not material for determining the multiplier, but the age of the dependent is relevant for determining the multiplier. Considering the fact that the age of the dependent i.e. the mother of the deceased was about 42 years, the multiplier of 16 taken by the Tribunal cannot be said to be incorrect. But the income of the deceased who was working as a labourer in the truck would not be lower than the minimum wage at the relevant time and, therefore, the income could not be less than Rs. 30 per day. Taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 900 per month, and the deceased and the dependent being two adults and two units each, the dependency would be worked to 2/4 equal to half i.e. Rs. 450 per month. Accordingly, the compensation amount is re-calculated as follows:

(i) Compensation (Rs. 450 X 12 x 16) Rs. 86,400 (ii) Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000 ________________ Total: Rs. 88,400 ________________

Mr. Harit, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submitted that the rate of interest determined by the Tribunal is on the higher side and in case this Court is enhancing the compensation amount, the rate of interest should be @ 9% per annum and not @ 12% per annum on the differential amount. We are unable to accept the said submission of Mr. Harit. The appellant was entitled to compensation including the enhanced amount as determined by us with effect from the date of application before the Tribunal. If the Tribunal has awarded interest on the claim amount at the rate of 12% per annum which was the prevailing rate of interest then, we see no reason to reduce the rate of interest to 9% per annum on the enhanced amount.

Accordingly, we hold that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 88,400 (Rupees eighty-eight thousand and four hundred only) with interest @ 12% per annum calculated from the date of application. It is stated by Mr. Harit, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 that the entire compensation amount with interest as awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned award totalling a sum of Rs. 75,671 (Rupees seventy-five thousand six hundred and seventy-one only) has been paid by the respondent No. 3 to the claimant, We direct that the compensation amount inclusive of interest, less the amount already paid to the claimant, will be deposited by respondent No. 3 with the aforesaid Tribunal within a period of two months from today and the Tribunal will make an order for fixed deposit or release of the money in accordance with the judgments of the Apex Court.