Nan Bai And Others vs Umed Singh And Others

Avneesh Jhingan, J.

The award dated 18.08.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short 'the Tribunal') in MACT case No. 51 of 2002, has been assailed by the legal heirs of Hari Kishan seeking enhancement of compensation awarded under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act').

The record of this appeal was burnt and from the salvaged record of the partially burnt cases, the same was reconstructed subject to all just exceptions and further verification.

The widow and three minor children of Hari Kishan are the appellants. The driver of Tata Four Wheeler bearing registration No. HR-20-H-1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle'); State of Haryana through Collector, Bhiwani; Director General of Police, Haryana and Senior Superintendent of Police, Hisar and the insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. have been arrayed as respondents No.1 to 5 respectively in the appeal.

The brief facts of the case are that on 08.04.2002, Hari Kishan was driving his motorcycle, on his way he was struck by a rashly and negligently driven offending vehicle. As a result of the impact, he sustained injuries and lost his life. FIR was registered.

The legal heirs of Hari Kishan filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the facts and appreciating the evidence adduced held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.10,57,360/- alongwith interest @9% per annum. The amount awarded included Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.5000 for loss of consortium and Rs.3000/- for loss of estate.

The claimants pleaded before the Tribunal that the deceased was working as an Assistant Branch Manager in Haryana Land Reclamation and

Development Corporation, Palwal and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.8182/-. . The Tribunal accepted the pleadings and the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.8182/-, 1/3rd deduction for self-expenses was made and a multiplier of 16 was applied.

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the paper book and relevant documents produced by learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellants contends that no future prospects have been awarded and the Tribunal erred in making deduction of 1/3rd for self expenses instead of 1/4th as the deceased was survived by four dependants. He further contends that the amounts awarded under the conventional heads are on the lower side.

Learned counsel for the insurer defended the award and resisted any further enhancement. He argued that the Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 16 instead of 15, as the deceased was 40 years of age at the time of accident.

There is no dispute between the parties regarding monthly income assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.8182/-.

The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants deserves acceptance.

The deceased was 40 years old and having permanent job, having due regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd.

vs. Pranay Sethi and others; 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009 and Hem Raj vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd; 2018 (2) PLR 480; 30% future prospects are awarded. Claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- each, for funeral

expenses and for loss of estate. Further an amount of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the widow for loss of consortium.

The deceased was survived by four dependants and 1/4th deduction for self expenses is to be made in consonance with the decision of Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another; (2009) 6 SCC 121.

As the quantum of compensation is being revisited and there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the age of the deceased as 40 years, hence, multiplier of 15 has to be applied in consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra).

In view of afore-said discussion, the compensation is recalculated as under:

Head

Compensation awarded

(i)

Income

Rs.8182/- per month (assessed by the

Tribunal)

(ii)

Future prospects at 30%

Rs.2454/- per month

(iii)

Total Income

Rs.10,636/- per month

(iv)

Deduction

of

personal

Rs.2659/- (i.e. 1/4th of total income)

expenses

(v)

Multiplier

15 (as per age of deceased)

(vi)

Total Dependency

Rs.7977x12x15=Rs.14,35,860/-

(vii)

Funeral expenses

Rs.15,000/-

(viii)

Loss of estate

Rs.15,000/-

(ix)

Loss of Consortium

Rs.40,000/-

Total Compensation awarded

Rs.15,05,860/-

The award dated 18.08.2004 is modified to the extent that the amount awarded of Rs.10,57,360/- is enhanced to Rs.15,05,860/-. The claimants/appellants shall be entitled to interest @7.5 % per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the filing of claim petition till the realization of the amount.

The appeal is partly allowed in the afore-said terms.