Mukesh and Others vs Narender Kumar and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is claimants'' appeal for enhancement of compensation. The appeal is directed against the award dated 05.04.2011 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short ''the Tribunal''). Smt. Mukesh and others, the claimants had brought a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the death of Yash Kumar in a road side accident. The claimants are the widow, two children and father of the deceased. Learned Tribunal vide award dated 05.04.2011 has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,32,000/- as compensation. Yash Kumar had met with an accident on 04.01.2009. He succumbed to the injuries received in the said accident. He was 28 years old at the time of the accident and was doing agricultural work and was running a dairy and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. He is said to be having 10 buffaloes and used to cultivate 18 acres of land.

The aforesaid averments of the claimants have been denied by the respondents. They have denied that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation.

Vide the impugned award, learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition of Smt. Mukesh and others and awarded a sum of Rs. 6,32,000/- as compensation in their favour.

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the deceased was having 18 acres of land and besides doing agricultural work thereon, he was running a dairy. According to him, the income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal at Rs. 4500/- per month is at a very lower side.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the deceased was aged 28 years old. According to him, the post mortem report mentions his age at the time of the death as 30 years. He has, however, submitted that he has no quarrel with the multiplier of 17, adopted by the Tribunal because this is the multiplier allowed by Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, for a victim in the age group of 26 to 30, in which Yash Kumar, the deceased had been.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. According to him, the claimants had been 4 and in case the dependent family members of a deceased are 4 to 6, the deduction is to be at the rate of 1/4th as per Sarla Verma''s case supra. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- under other conventional heads and that amount is also on a lower side.

Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has submitted that the income of the deceased has been taken at a proper amount. There is no evidence on the record to prove that he was having 18 acres of land. He has further submitted that even though he had 18 acres of land, the said land is still there with the family and that would be yielding income even without self cultivation if it is given for the same purpose to others. He has further submitted that father of the deceased had not been a dependent on the deceased. According to him, at least there was no evidence to prove that there was such circumstances in which father of the deceased had become a dependent upon his son. He has further submitted that taking the dependents at 3, learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the dependency of the claimants at 2/3rd of his income. He also has no quarrel with the multiplier adopted by learned Tribunal.

It has come in the evidence that the deceased had three acres of land. He was claimed by the appellants to be cultivating 15 acres of land belonging to Norang and Gulab Singh. However, no evidence with regard to the same was brought on the record. The deceased had been a good player and he had passed B.A. Part-I in the year 2006. I am inclined to enhance the income of the deceased a little and take it at Rs. 5000/- per month.

Father of the deceased named Raj Kumar, who is shown to be 61 years old is not proved to be a dependent on his son, who himself was having his own family. In these circumstances, deduction of 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased is quite proper. Deducting 1/3rd from Rs. 5000/- and multiplying the remainder with 12, annual dependency of the appellants No. 1 to 3 comes to Rs. 40,000/-. Multiplying it further with 17, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal, I find a sum of Rs. 6,80,000/- as the amount lost by appellants No. 1 to 3 in the death of Yash Kumar. Adding to it, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as allowed by the Tribunal under the conventional heads, I find a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- as compensation payable to appellants No. 1 to 3 on the death of Yash Kumar. Consequently, the appeal qua Raj Kumar, appellant no. 4 fails and is dismissed. The appeal of appellants No. 1 to 3 is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs. 6,32,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 7,00,000/-. Out of it, 50% would be going to the share of appellant No. 1, Smt. Mukesh and the remaining 50% would be going equally to appellants No. 2 and 3. Appellants No. 1 to 3 are also entitled to interest as given by the Tribunal.