Nirmala Bai & Others vs Baldau Singh Maravi & Others

Gautam Chourdiya, J

This appeal is by the claimants against the award dated 19.12.2013, passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Mungeli, (C.G.) in Claim Case No.146/2011 awarding total compensation of Rs. 4,18,000/- with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization, fastening liability on the non-applicant No. 3.

As per claim petition, on 01.06.2010 deceased- Virendra, aged about 30 years, earning Rs.10,000/- to 12,000/- per month by work of mason (Raj Mistri), died in the motor vehicle accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. CG09B/5014 by non-applicant No.1- Baldau Singh Maravi.

On claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties passed an award as mentioned above.

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits as under:

(i) that income of the deceased has wrongly been considered by the Tribunal as Rs. 3,000/- per month whereas it should have been Rs.3,500/- as per minimum wages at the relevant time.

(ii) that 1/3rd deduction towards personal and living is also against the law and it should have been 1/4th.

(iv) that no amount towards future prospect has been granted to the claimants.

(v) that the amount awarded under the conventional heads also being on the lower side deserves to be enhanced suitably.

In support of above contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 has duly assisted the Court.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company supports the impugned award and submits that the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matters has rightly awarded compensation which needs no interference by this Court.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

As regards income of the deceased is concerned, the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning 10,000/- to 12,000/- per month as Mason (Raj Mistri) but no documentary or oral evidence in support thereof has been adduced. Therefore, in these circumstances, in absence of any proof regarding income, the income of the deceased is considered as Rs.3,500/- per month as per minimum wages at the relevant time. Further, considering the age of the deceased i.e. 30 years, the dependency, the nature of his job and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi, Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the claimants are held entitled for compensation in the following manner:

Sl. No.

Heads

Calculation (in rupees)

01.

Income of the deceased @ Rs.35,00 per month

Rs. 42,000/- per annum

02.

40% of (i) above to be added towards future prospects.

Rs. 42,000+ 16800= Rs. 58,800/-

03.

1/4th deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased

Rs. 58,800 -14700= Rs. 44,100/-

04.

Multiplier of 17 to be applied

Rs. 7, 49,700/-

05.

Towards loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses

Rs. 70,000/-

Total compensation

Rs. 8,19,700/-

Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.4,18,000/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the claimants are held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.4,01,700/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. It is directed that the Insurance Company shall pay the amount of compensation to the claimants along with interest within a period of two months from the date of this order.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent.