Pooran Lal and Another vs Amratlal and Others

K.S. Chauhan, J.—This appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by the award dated 31.1.2005 passed by Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Katni in Claim Case No. 159 of 2004, whereby the claim petition of appellants has been allowed in part and the respondents are directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 52,000 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on account of death of their son Gudda alias Premchand caused in a motor accident.

The facts of the case in short are that on 20.5.2003 Ahilyabai was coming with her son Gudda alias Premchand in tractor No. MP 21-9416, trolley No. MP 21-9416, the tractor was being driven rashly and negligently by Amratlal, respondent No. 1, on account of which the tractor turned turtle resulting into death of Gudda alias Premchand on the spot.

The report was lodged at police station against respondent No. 1 wherein the crime was registered. This vehicle was owned by the respondent No. 2 and insured with the respondent No. 3. The claimants filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 8,15,000 to be awarded for the death of their son Gudda alias Premchand.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted the written statement denying the factum of negligence by the driver mainly contending that respondent No. 1 was having valid and effective driving licence. The vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3, therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation.

The respondent No. 3 also submitted the written statement disputing the claim mainly contending that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence.

The vehicle was insured for agricultural purposes but the same was used for carrying passengers. The vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

After considering the evidence adduced by the parties in the case, Claims Tribunal found that this accident was an outcome of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No. 1 resulting into death of Gudda alias Premchand.

It was also held that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 52,000 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.

Dissatisfied with the award the appellants have filed this appeal u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of compensation.

We have heard Mr. Sharad Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellants and Ms. Anjali Banerjee, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, insurer.

The main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the Tribunal has erred in not awarding the adequate compensation to the appellants?

We have gone through the entire evidence placed on record.

Pooran Lal, CW 1, has deposed that his son Gudda alias Premchand, aged 5 years died in the motor accident. His son was hale and hearty and brilliant. If he might not have died in the accident, he would have supported him in future. The evidence of Pooran Lal has not been rebutted in cross-examination.

It is clear that there is no dispute regarding the factum of accident and negligence of respondent No. 1. The deceased Gudda alias Premchand was 5 years of age though he was not earning at that time but he might have earned in future if he would not have died in accident.

Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the awarded amount of compensation is on lower side. He has cited the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satender and Others, , wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has awarded Rs. 1,80,000 for the death of child of 9 years in a motor accident.

In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the finding of the Hon''ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender (supra), we assess income of deceased at Rs. 15,000 per year as specified in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for non-earning member. After allowing 1/3rd deduction, which the deceased would have spent on himself, had he been alive, annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 10,000. Since the deceased was aged 5 years, therefore, multiplier of 15 is applicable and same is applied. Thus compensation on account of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 10,000 x 15 = Rs. 1,50,000. In addition, claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 25,000 on account of funeral expenses, loss to estate and loss of expectancy of life. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs. 1,50,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 1,75,000 (rupees one lakh seventy-five thousand). The compensation enhanced by this Court shall carry interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation.

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.