Pramod Cherwa and Others vs Amit Sharma and Others

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—Learned Counsel for the appellants is heard on admission.

This is claimants'' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korea, District Baikunthpur (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 18-9-2008, passed in Motor Claim Case No. 40/2006.

The claimants, unfortunate parents, brother and sister of deceased Santosh claimed compensation of Rs. 30,24,000/- by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 19-12-2005 when the Tractor in which he was travelling was dashed by the offending vehicle Tata Spacio bearing registration No. C.G.-04/T/0797, resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself.

The claimants further pleaded that deceased Santosh was aged about 18 years and used to earn Rs. 6,000/- per month as Carpenter. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties held that the deceased Santosh died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 19-12-2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tata Spacio; as the offending vehicle Tata Spacio on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 150/- per day, Rs. 4,500/- per month and Rs. 54,000/- per annum. By deducting 2/3rd of Rs. 54,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants'' dependency was assessed at Rs. 18,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 18,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs. 14,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,94,500/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Santosh in the motor accident.

The Tribunal further directed payment of interest @ 7% per annum on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 1,94,500/-, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

Shri D.N. Prajapati, learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants'' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs. 4,500/- per month only; in deducting 2/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses as against the usual l/3rd as prescribed in the Second Schedule u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act; in selecting the lower multiplier of 10; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 1,94,500/- only. True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Santosh used to earn Rs. 6,000/- per month as Carpenter, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. Considering that the deceased was a boy aged about 18 years only, we do not find any fault in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs. 150/- per day, Rs. 4,500/- per month and Rs. 54,000/- per annum.

The assessment of the claimant''s dependency at Rs. 18,000/- per annum by the Tribunal by deducting 2/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses also cannot be found fault with, in view of the dictum of the Apex in the case of Donat Louis Machado and Ors. v. L. Ravindra and Ors. reported in 2000 (1) T.A.C. 2008.

The multiplier of 10 selected by the Tribunal also does not suffer from any infirmity in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Shri Laxman Iyer and Another, , wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10.

We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants'' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected.

The appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.