AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mrs. R. D. Mozumdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. I. A. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents No. 1 and 2/Claimants.
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.09.2014 passed by the learned
Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat in MAC Case No. 29/2010, filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 has submitted that in view of the nature of grounds taken in the appeal, the dispute
is with regard to the calculation of the quantum of compensation and he prays that the matter be heard and finally disposed of as it is only the
arithmetical calculation that has to be examined by this Court.
In view of the said submissions, the appeal is taken up for hearing with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the
respondents No. 1 and 2. Therefore, the issuance of notices on the respondents No. 3 and 4 is dismissed with.
The brief facts of the case is that on 24.12.2009, at about 3.00 A.M., the son of the respondents No. 1 and 2 namely, Gobin Missong was travelling
from Guwahati to Silchar in a truck bearing Registration No. AS-01-S/4494 as a helper/handyman engaged in the said truck. At a place named Jaiaw
Langsning Road, NH-40 under East Khasi Hills, suddenly, the left side door of the truck opened while taking a turning. As a result, the deceased fell
down on the road and had sustained severe head injury and died on the spot. At the time of the death, he was 22 years and was a bachelor, having
income of Rs.5,000/- p.m. (inclusive of allowance).
Denying the liability, the present appellant filed the written statement and on the basis of the pleadings, the learned tribunal had framed the following
three issues for trial:-
Whether the claim petition is maintainable under the provision of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (Amended)?
Whether the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident on 24.12.2009 involving vehicle No. AS-01-S/4494
(Truck)?
Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation ? If so, what would be the amount of compensation and from whom?
The respondent No. 1 examined herself as PW 1 and had exhibited four documents being (i) Accident Report (Ext.1), (ii) Medical Certificate of
cause of death (Ext.2), (iii) Provisional Death Certificate (Ext. 3), (iv) Police Report dated 25.12.2009 (Ext. 4).
As regards issue No. 1, the learned tribunal had held the same in the affirmative. In respect of the issues No. 2 and 3, the learned tribunal accepted
that the age of the deceased was 22 years and he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and therefore, on the basis of the age of the mother, multiplier of
13 was applied and as the cap of income in an application under Section 163-A was Rs.40,000/- per month, the compensation was calculated as
Rs.40,000/- X 13 = Rs.5,20,000/-. Moreover, the respondents No. 1 and 2 were held to be entitled to funeral expenses of Rs.2,000/- and loss of estate
earning to Rs.2,500/- and accordingly, a total of Rs.5,24,500/- along with 6% interest was fixed from the date of filing of the claim petition till the
award was granted to the respondents No. 1 and 2.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the income is required to be deducted on account of
personal living expenses. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs
Pranay Sethi and Ors, MANU/SC/1366/2017 : (2017) 8 Supreme 107, it is submitted that the applicable multiplier would be the age of the deceased
and therefore, the applicable multiplier will be 18.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that as per the ratio laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) where the
applicable multiplier is held to be 18, on the basis of the said decision, the respondents No. 1 and 2 were entitled to funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/-
and loss of estate of Rs.15,000/- and therefore, he submits that on the basis of the aforesaid decisions, the final award may be drawn up in this appeal.
Considering these submissions made by the learned counsel for the both sides, it appears that the learned tribunal did not deduct the personal and
living expenses from the income of the deceased, which has been standardise to be 50% in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and Anr., (2009) 6
SCC 121, which has been upheld in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Moreover, the applicable multiplier would be 18 on the basis of the age of the
deceased. Therefore, it appears that the compensation is required to be recast in accordance with the ratio laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra). Therefore, the calculation of compensation is done as follows:-
(i) Annual income under Section 163-A of the MV Act = Rs.40,000/-
(ii) Deduct 50% on account of personal and living expenses
(iii) Applicable multiplier                     = 18
(iv) Compensation = Rs.20,000/- X 18 Â = Rs.3,60,000/-
(v) Add on account of funeral expenses = Rs.15,000/-
(vi) Add on account of loss of estate     = Rs.15,000/-
Total               = Rs.3,90,000/-
(Rupees Three lakh Ninety Thousand only)Â
Therefore, the compensation is scaled down on Rs.3,90,000/-, which shall be deposited by the appellant before the Registry of this Court within a
period of four weeks from today along with 6% interest as per the award. The appellant is entitled to adjustment of any money paid and/or deposited
on account of compensation, or no fault liability, as well as statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- made before the Registry of this Court. On such deposit
being made, the Registry may permit the respondents No. 1 and 2 to withdraw the same being duly identified by Mr. I. A. Talukdar, their learned
counsel.
The appeal, therefore, stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.