Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Harak Chand Sethi

Ajay Rastogi, J.—Instant appeal has been filed by Insurance Company questioning quantum of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur ("Tribunal") in claim MACT Case No. 117/98, vide award dated 26.4.2002.

Deceased Dharmendra Kumar aged 30 years working as Supervisor in some private firm in Surat had died in an accident which took place on 18.5.1997, while going in marriage party from Chitawa to Katthoti in offending bus No. RJ-26-P0210, being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. Claimants are parents and younger brother of deceased whose monthly salary was pleaded of Rs. 3,500. The Tribunal, after taking note of material on record awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,81,500 with interest @9% per annum from the date of claim petition till its actual payment vide impugned Award.

Only contention advanced by Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Counsel for Insurance Company is that when the deceased was unmarried, the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier looking to the age of deceased whereas it ought to have adopted multiplier keeping in view age of parents who were aged 55 and 50 years, and as per their age multiplier of 11 is appropriate as per 2nd schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ("the Act") for determination of just compensation. In support of his contention, Counsel placed reliance on the decisions of Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, and Ghyan Chand Jain v. Permanand I (2003) ACC 149 (SC) : 2003 (1) TAC 490.

Per contra, Mr. Vinay Mathur, Counsel for claimants supporting the Impugned Award, has urged that under the schedule appended to the Act, multiplier is the basis of age of victim and not on the claimants and the Apex Court has always considered all relevant factors particularly age of unmarried victim so also age of his parents while examining total loss of dependency.

I have considered rival contentions of the parties and with their assistance, perused the findings recorded by the Tribunal and material on record.

It is true that selection of multiplier cannot in all cases solely be dependent on the age of the deceased and age of parents also in case of unmarried victim is also relevant for determination of multiplier.

In the present case, the Award has been passed with respect to the grant of compensation while assessing annual income Rs. 24,000 to which 1/3rd deduction was given towards personal expenses of the deceased, and determined Rs. 2,72,000 as financial dependency of the family to the claimants parents. According to 2nd Schedule, multiplier varies from 5 to 18 depending upon the age group of victim and under this schedule maximum multiplier can be upto 18 and not 16 as held in Susama Thomas''s I (1994) ACC 346 (SC) case (supra). But it cannot be forgotten keeping in view age of deceased and parents being solely dependent upon him and there is nothing on record that they were also having any other source of income and even if he would have been married at later stage, they remained dependents upon him. In present state of affairs, I do not find any justification to interfere with just compensation awarded by the Tribunal while applying multiplier of 17 as per 2nd schedule appended to the Act.

Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.