Manjit Kaur and Others vs Tarsem Lal and Others

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.—The claimants feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Clams Tribunal, Patiala (in short "the Tribunal") have approached this Court by way of instant appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

On 3.7.1995 at about 6.55 PM, Gurmukh Singh was coming on scooter No. CH-01-7451 from Rajpura to his workshop at Bus Adda, Sheikhpura and when he reached near Bus Adda, Dhareri Jattan, a bus bearing No. PB-11B-9357 coming from the side of Patiala at a high speed struck the scooter, as a result of which Gurmukh Singh fell down. Said Gurmukh Singh was removed to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala where he died. According to the claimants, the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus by Tarsem Lal Driver. In this regard, FIR No. 152 was registered on 3.7.1995 under Sections 279, 304-A, 427 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sadar, Patiala. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation of Rs. 10 lacs. The claim petition was contested by respondents No. 1 and 2 by filing separate written statements. Besides controverting the averments made in the claim petition, it was pleaded that no accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. It was further pleaded that both the scooterists were in drunken condition and when the bus was about 50 yards away from them, they tried to cross each other and as a result of which dickeys and stipneys of their scooters collided with each other and they became unbalanced. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

Whether the death of Gurmukh Singh took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 Tarsem Lal? OPA

If issue No. 1 is proved to what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to and from whom? OPA

Whether respondent No. 1 was not holding valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident? OPR

Relief.

The Tribunal while deciding issue No. 1 in favour of the claimant held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. PB-11B-9357 by driver Tarsem Lal-respondent No. 1. Under issue No. 2, the claimants were awarded compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- on account of death of Gurmukh Singh. No arguments were advanced under issue No. 3 by the counsel for the respondents. Accordingly, the Tribunal vide award dated 2.3.2000 awarded compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to be paid jointly and severally by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of award failing which they shall pay interest @ 10% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the claimants were entitled to compensation on account of death after adding 50% of the income on account of future prospectus and after deducting 1/6th of the amount which the deceased would have spent upon himself. According to the learned counsel, the deceased being 28 years of age, suitable multiplier in terms of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, was 17. In addition thereto, the amount was also claimed on account of compensation to the family members for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc. and also compensation to the widow of the deceased for loss of love and affection, pains and sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of protection, social security etc.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2- owner of the vehicle besides supporting the award passed by the Tribunal submitted that no justification for enhancement of compensation is called for in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the appellants-claimants are entitled to following amount of compensation:-

(a) Ordinarily, though there is no concrete evidence but the income which a labourer would earn is taken to be Rs. 3000/- per month and the multiplier of 17 is apt in view of Sarla Verma''s case (supra);

(b) 50% is required to be added for future prospectus where the deceased was self employed or working with fixed wages and was 28 years of age in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, ;

(c) There is widow of the deceased Gurmukh Singh, three children and aged parents who were dependent on the income of the deceased. Thus, in such circumstances, 1/6 would be reasonable to be deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased and the remaining 5/6th would be taken to be dependency of the claimants as laid down in Vimal Kanwar and Others Vs. Kishore Dan and Others, ;

(d) Besides the above, the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India held in Vimal Kanwar''s case (supra) that the claimants are also entitled to Compensation on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of love and affection for the children and parents and funeral expenses. Applying the same, an amount of Rs. 40,000/- is awarded as compensation to family members for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc. and Rs. 55,000/- on account of compensation to the widow and children of the deceased for loss of love and affection, pains and sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of protection, social security and funeral expenses etc.

In view of the above, the total amount would work out to be :-

a) Dependency on account of loss of income Rs. 3000/- p.m. less 1/6th i.e. Rs. 500/- = Rs. 2500/- per month = Rs. 30,000/- per annum.

b) 50% to be added for future prospects = Rs. 15000/- per annum.

c) Total dependency = Rs. 30,000/- per annum + Rs. 15,000/- per annum = Rs. 45,000/- per annum.

d) Total amount of compensation on the basis of multiplier of 17 = Rs. 45000/- x 17 = Rs. 7,65,000/-.

e) Loss of consortium, love and affection, loss of estate, for widow, children, parents and funeral expenses = Rs. 95000/-

Grand Total Rs. 8,60,000/-

The claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 8,60,000/- along with interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal. The amount of compensation shall be distributed to the claimants in the same manner as ordered by the Tribunal.

The appeal stands partly allowed.