Oriental Insruance Co. Ltd. vs Liladhar Hirji Dama

@

Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J.—These appeals arise out of a common judgement and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 31.8.2006 in MACP No. 722 and 496 of 1994. Both the appeals have been filed by the insurance company primarily questioning the computation of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the claimants.

On 25.6.1994, one Manish Dama and his friend Piyush Pujara were returning from Gandhidham to Bhuj in a Maruti car. Piyush was driving the car. Near the village Sapeda a truck insured by the appellant insurance company came from behind. While trying to overtake the car from behind, the truck driver lost control and toppled over. Because of sudden and abrupt halting of the vehicle, the Maruti car collided with the truck causing the death of both the occupants. Deceased Piyush Pujara was aged about 23 years. His friend Manish Dama was aged about 21 years. Both were unmarried. The claimants included their parents and brothers.

In case of deceased Piyush, the claimants filed Claim Petition No. 496/1994 seeking compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs from the driver, owner and insurer of the truck. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 7,93,000/-. In case of deceased Manish, the claimants filed Claim Petition No. 722 of 1994 claiming compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 17,53,000/-. The insurance company has filed these two appeals questioning the said award.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, insofar as the question of negligence is concerned, there is enough evidence to hold that the driver of the truck was totally negligent in causing the accident. It has come on record that in the process of overtaking the vehicle, the truck deriver lost control and the truck toppled over. From the fact that the truck toppled would indicate that same was being driven at an excessive speed and in the manner where the truck driver could not control the heavy vehicle.

Coming to the question of compensation, in case of deceased Piyush, the claimants established his income of Rs. 4000/- per month while rendering his service in a provisional store run by his father. The Claims Tribunal granted reasonable increase and adopted sum of Rs. 6000/- per month. 1/3rd thereof was deducted for personal expenditure of the deceased. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 16 and computed dependency benefits at Rs. 7,68,000/-. To such sum, the Tribunal added amount for loss of estate of Rs. 20,000/- and funeral expenses of Rs. 5000/-. Learned counsel Shri Nanavaty for the insurance company rightly pointed out that since the deceased was unmarried and the claimants included his parents and his brother as per the decision of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , the deduction for personal expenditure should have been 1/2 and not 1/3rd. At the same time counsel for the claimants correctly pointed out that as per the decision of Sarla Verma (SMT) and others (supra), looking to the age of the deceased, multiplier to be taken was 18 and not 16. Remaining figures do not call for any adjustment. We would rework the compensation payable to the claimants accordingly.

Out of the established income of Rs. 6000/-, 1/2 or Rs. 3000/- would be set apart for personal expenditure of the deceased, leaving Rs. 3000/- for the claimants. The claimants would therefore, under the head of loss of dependency benefits would receive a sum of Rs. 6,48,000/- (Rs. 3000/- x 12 x 18). This would be in substitution of Rs. 7,68,000/- granted by the Tribunal. To this we would add Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 5000/- towards post death ceremonies. Total compensation to be paid to the claimants of deceased Piyush comes to Rs. 6,73,000/-. Award of the Tribunal granting Rs. 7,93,000/- would stand modified accordingly.

Coming to the claim petition in relation to deceased Manish, he was earning income of Rs. 9000/- from construction business and considering future rise in income, prospective income of Rs. 13,500/- is not seriously in dispute. Here also deduction for personal expenditure of the deceased would have to be 1/2 instead of 1/3rd adopted by the Tribunal. At the same time, the multiplier of 18 instead of 16 would have to be taken. The claimant would thus receive compensation under the loss of dependency benefits accordingly. Out of Rs. 13,500/-, 1/2 thereof or Rs. 6750/- would have to be set apart for personal expenditure of the deceased leaving other half of Rs. 6750/- for the benefit of the claimants. Applying multiplier of 18, the total would come to Rs. 14,58,000/- (Rs. 6750 x 12 x 18). Adding Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 5000/- towards post death ceremonies, total compensation payable to the claimants of deceased Manish comes to Rs. 14,83,000/-. Award of the Claims Tribunal granting Rs. 17,53,000/- stands modified accordingly.

The Claims Tribunal shall refund the excess amount to the insurance company releasing the remaining in favour of the claimants.

Both the appeals are disposed of.