Munni Bai and Others vs Ramnath Singh and Others

Maheshwari, J.—Appellants-claimants have come forward with this appeal u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ''the Act'') for enhancement of the sum awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Morena in Claim Case No. 5 of 2005 vide award dated 31.1.2006, whereby their claim regarding vehicular death of Suresh Kumar Baghel, aged about 37 years, in the alleged motor accident has been awarded against the respondents by saddling their joint and several liability to indemnify the sum of Rs. 6,52,000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e., 12.5.2005. Appellants herein filed their claim contending that Suresh Kumar Baghel, aged 37 years, husband of the appellant No. 1, father of appellant Nos. 2 to 6 and son of appellant No. 7 and son-in-law of appellant Nos. 8 and 9, had died in the alleged vehicular accident on 10.2.2004, which was the cause and consequence of rash and negligent driving of the Marshal Jeep bearing registration No. MP 06-NB 1527 by respondent No. 1. Such offending vehicle was duly registered in the name of respondent No. 2, while the same was insured with respondent No. 3. As per further averments the deceased being an advocate was practising in the different courts of Morena District and out of such profession he was earning near about Rs. 16,000 per month. Due to his untimely death in the alleged accident, the appellants have been deprived of their dependency and on such premises the impugned claim was filed for the compensation of Rs. 91,90,000 along with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. Along with the claim petition the certified copy of some papers of the criminal case registered with respect to the alleged accident and the post-mortem report of the deceased are also placed on record.

On behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 after giving appearance, they have filed their reply in which the factum of the alleged accident was denied. In addition it is stated that the alleged accident was cause and consequence of negligent riding of the motor cycle by the deceased, hence the liability of the impugned claim could not be saddled against them. In any case the impugned case should be considered to be the case of contributory negligence. It is further stated that on holding any liability against these respondents, the same be saddled against the respondent No. 3, insurer, as the offending vehicle was duly insured with it.

In reply of respondent No. 3 by denying the averments of the claim petition, it is stated that the deceased himself was riding the motor cycle in rash and negligent manner and due to that he met with the accident. Thereafter under the wrong premises the criminal case was registered against respondent No. 1. It is also stated that the respondent No. 1 did not possess valid and effective driving licence and in such premises the offending vehicle was plied contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, no liability of the impugned claim could be saddled against the respondent No. 3 and prayed for exonerating such respondent to indemnify the liability of the impugned claim.

In view of the pleadings of the parties, after framing the issues and recording the evidence, on appreciation of the same holding that Suresh Kumar Baghel died due to rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid offending Marshal Jeep by respondent No. 1, the claim of the appellants has been awarded against the respondents for the sum as stated above. Being dissatisfied with such award, the appellants have come forward to this court with this appeal.

Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, by referring to the pleadings, available evidence and the exhibited documents from the record of the Tribunal said that income of the deceased was not taken into consideration in accordance with the available evidence and the compensation was assessed taking into consideration the income of the deceased only at Rs. 8,000 per month, at very lower side while he was earning Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 16,000 per month. He further said that in view of the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/5th sum out of the income of the deceased for the expenses of the deceased, which he would have spent on himself had he been alive but contrary to such direction of the Apex Court, 50 per cent sum in this regard was deducted by the Tribunal. He also said that instead of the multiplier 15, multiplier 16 should have been applied by the Tribunal. With these submissions he prayed for further reasonable enhancement of the sum awarded by the Tribunal by allowing this appeal.

The aforesaid prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3, insurer, saying that the approach of the Tribunal in awarding the sum stated in the impugned award is based on proper appreciation of the evidence and also in conformity with law. It does not require any interference for any enhancement at the stage of the appeal. According to him in the available facts and circumstances of the matter the sum awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

Having heard the counsel, keeping in view their arguments, after perusing the record along with the impugned judgment, 1 am of the considered view that the sum awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants is on lower side and contrary to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid matter of Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), cited on behalf of appellants. In the lack of any appeal at the instance of any of the respondents, this appeal does not require any reconsideration on the findings of the Tribunal holding that alleged accident was cause and consequence of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid offending vehicle by the respondent No. 1 and saddling joint and several liability to indemnify the awarded sum against the respondents. In the available circumstances, such findings of the Tribunal are binding against the parties at this stage. So far as further enhancement in the sum awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, in view of available evidence, keeping in view the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra), I deem fit to re-assess the sum of compensation for its further enhancement.

Keeping in view the pleadings of the parties, after going through the evidence laid down by them, on re-appreciation of the same, I am of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any error in taking into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000 per month. As the deceased being an advocate was practising in the various courts of District Morena, but I have not found any document showing that the deceased was an income tax payer. In the lack of such evidence, the income assessed by the Tribunal could not be deemed to be at lower side, hence the findings of the impugned award in this regard are hereby affirmed.

In the matter of Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), regarding deduction of the amount with respect to the expenses of the deceased, which he would have spent on himself had he been alive, some observations are made. The same are as under:

(14) Though in some cases the deduction to be made for personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3; one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6; and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of the dependent family members exceeds six.

Keeping in view the number of persons dependent on the deceased in the case at hand, i.e., nine, the Tribunal did not have any authority to deduct the sum more than 1/5th from the annual income of the deceased with respect to the expenses of such deceased which he would have spent on himself had he been alive, but it is apparent from the impugned award that on such account 1/3rd sum has been deducted by the Tribunal, hence such findings of the Tribunal being contrary to law, same is hereby set aside with a direction to deduct 1/5th sum on the aforesaid head from the income of the deceased. In the aforesaid premises, taking into consideration the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per month, his annual income comes to Rs. 8,000 x 12 = Rs. 96,000, out of which on deducting ''/5th sum with respect to the expenses of the deceased, as stated above, the annual dependency of the appellants on the deceased comes to Rs. 96,000 - Rs. 19,200 = Rs. 76,800.

Although appellants'' counsel has argued the matter to assess the total dependency and compensation by adopting the multiplier of 16 provided in Second Schedule, enacted u/s 163-A of the Act, but I am not in agreement with the counsel in this regard, because in the aforesaid case of Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), taking into consideration the provision of section 166, the following principles are laid down by the Apex Court to apply the multiplier in the claim cases:

(21) We, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column 4 of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC) and Charlie, 2005 ACJ 1131 (SC). which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years. M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced to two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.

According to settled principle, after deducting the sum under the head of expenses of the deceased, the court is bound to apply the multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased. Thus, keeping in view the age of the deceased, i.e., 37 years as held by the Tribunal, in view of aforesaid dictum, the multiplier of 15 is applied to the case at hand. On applying the same, the total dependency of the appellants comes to Rs. 76,800 x 15 = Rs. 11,52,000. The same is awarded. Besides this, the appellants are also entitled for Rs. 20,000 under conventional heads, like funeral expenses, expectancy of life, loss to estate and also the appellant No. 1 with respect to depriving the company of her husband for her remaining life. The same is also awarded. In view of the aforesaid by allowing this appeal in part, the sum awarded by the Tribunal, i.e., Rs. 6,52,000 is enhanced to Rs. 11,72,000 as discussed above. The enhanced sum shall also fetch interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. The liability to indemnify such enhanced sum is saddled jointly and severally against the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, as also held by the Tribunal. Till this extent the impugned award of the Tribunal is hereby modified while other findings of the same are hereby affirmed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.