Purnima Chandrakar (Smt.) and Others vs Murli Manohar and Others

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

This is claimants'' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 25.10.2005 passed in Claim Case No.117/2004.

As against the compensation of Rs.10,40,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants unfortunate widow, minor children and father of deceased Pramod Chandrakar by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth, "the Act,") for his death in the motor accident on 04.07.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,95,100/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

Shri JA Lohani, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants'' evidence about the income of the deceased; in assessing his income at Rs.2000/- per month; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,95,100/-.

Shri Dasarath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 The National Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,95,100/- awarded by the tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that deceased Pramod Chandrakar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 04.07.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle truck; as the offending vehicle truck on the date of the accident was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2000/- per month. By deducting Rs.600/- per month towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants'' dependency was assessed at Rs. 1,400/- per month and Rs.16,800/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,800/- with the multiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,85,600/- (wrongly mentioned as 2,86,600/- in para No. 18 of the award). By awarding further sum of Rs.9,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,95,100/- as compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,95,100/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of actual payment.

The claimants pleaded that deceased Pramod Chandrakar was getting salary of Rs.3,000/- per month by working in Ujwal Poha Mill. The claimants in support of the above pleading, produced salary certificate (Ex. P/14) before the Tribunal. The owner of the Poha Mill Shailandra Kothari was also examined by the claimants as AW/2 before the Tribunal, who categorically deposed that deceased Pramod Chandrakal was working as Munshi in his mill and was being paid salary of Rs.3,000/- per month.

The evidence of the claimants about the income of the deceased including the salary certificate has been discarded by the Tribunal without assigning any cogent reason.

On a thorough scrutiny of the evidence of AW/2 Shailendra Kothari, the owner of the Poha Mill and the salary certificate of the deceased (Ex.P/14), we are satisfied that the claimants have succeeded in establishing that deceased Pramod Chandrakar was getting salary of Rs.3,000/- per month by working as Munshi in Ujwal Poha Mill of Shailendra Kothari, AW/2. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum.

By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.36,000/- towards personal expenses of deceased, the claimants'' dependency is assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum.

Considering the age of the deceased, his widow and their minor children, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 16 would be appropriate in the present case.

By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation works out to Rs.3,84,000/-. By adding further sum of Rs.9,500/- awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.3,93,500/-.

Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself.

The accident in the present case wherein deceased Pramod Chandrakar lost his life took place in the year 2004; the claimants filed the claim petition in the year 2004; the impugned award was passed by the Tribunal in the year 2005; the present appeal was filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation in the year 2006; and the appeal is being finally decided in the year 2009. Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal, and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.98,400/- at Rs.11,600/-.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,95,100/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,93,500/- with further quantified amount of interest of 11,600/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.98,400/-.

Respondent No.3 The National Insurance Company Limited is granted three months'' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rs. 98,400/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.11,600/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.98,400/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal.

No order as to costs.