Panchu Ram and Others vs Mangi Lal and Others

Narendra Kumar Jain, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

The claimants-appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation against the judgment/ award dated 23.10.1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, District Jaipur, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 262 of 1994, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,54,000 in favour of the claimants-appellants in respect of deceased Arjun Lal, aged about 18 years.

Learned Counsel for the claimants-appellants contended that although the deceased was bachelor and was 18 years of age, but the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,54,000 awarded by the Tribunal is a meagre amount and it should be enhanced. He also placed reliance on The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Shri Laxman Iyer and Another, and Manju Devi v. Musafir Paswan 2005 ACJ 99 in support of his contention.

I have considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties and examined the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal.

The learned Tribunal while deciding issue No. 3 awarded Rs. 1,44,000 towards loss of income in favour of the parents of the deceased and Rs. 10,000 were awarded for ''love and affection''. Thus, the total compensation of Rs. 1,54,000 has been awarded.

The above referred judgments cited on behalf of the appellants were decided on the basis of facts of those cases. The present application was filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. So far as the Second Schedule is concerned, the same is not applicable strictly on the application, filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Second Schedule is meant for application filed u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya and Others, , observed as under:

(16) In both General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, the multiplier appears to have been adopted taking note of the prevalent banking rate of interest.

(17) In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, , it was noted that the normal rate of interest was about 10 per cent and, accordingly the multiplier was worked out. As the interest rate is on the decline, the multiplier has to consequentially be raised. Therefore, instead of 16 the multiplier of 18 as was adopted in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, , appears to be appropriate. In fact in Trilok Chandra''s case (supra), after reference to Second Schedule to the Act, it was noticed that the same suffers from many defects. It was pointed out that the same is to serve as a guide, but cannot be said to be invariable ready reckoner...

After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission of learned Counsel for the claimants-appellants, I am satisfied that the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,54,000 awarded in the present case in favour of the parents of deceased, who was 18 years of age, was just and reasonable and no interference is called for in this appeal.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.