Ram Das and Others vs Birpal and Others

Anant Kumar, J.—This first appeal from order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimants against the award dated 16.05.2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Hardoi in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 167 of 2004 (Ram Das and others v. Birpal and others), whereby the award of Rs. 1,60,400/- has been awarded to the claimants with 6% per annum interest from the date of award till the date of payment. The brief facts, relevant for the disposal of this appeal, are that the claimants Ram Das and Smt. Ramshree W/o. Ram Das had filed a claim petition in respect of their son Santosh Kumar alias Sunil Kumar who met with an accident on 13.06.2014 at Sikandra Rau to Etah Road, District Aligarh. It is stated in the claim petition that the deceased was a cleaner on the truck and was doing agricultural work. On the fateful day, he was travelling on the truck bearing No. U.G.D./164, which was carrying goods from District Aligarh to Kanpur. On 13.06.2004 at about 6:30 hours in the morning on Sikandara Rau-Etah Road at a distance of about 10 Kms. one of the tyre of the said truck was got punctured. The truck was stationed by the side of the road and when the deceased was replacing the tyre of the said truck, a Tanker No. UP81F 9668, which was being driven by its driver Birpal rashly and negligently, hit the deceased due to which he sustained serious injuries. He was first taken to Government Hospital, Sikandara Rau from where he was referred to District Hospital Etah, where he succumbed to his injuries. It is further stated in the claim petition that the age of the deceased was 22 years 7 months and he was earning a sum of Rs. 3000/-.

Hence, a claim petition was filed by the claimants (father and mother of the deceased), for the compensation on account of the death of the deceased. After considering the material on record, the learned Tribunal while deciding issue No. 4 came to the conclusion that the deceased died due to the serious injuries which he sustained in the accident.

The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that though in the claim petition, it is mentioned that the deceased was earning Rs. 3000/- but no evidence in this regard has been given, so the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 1800/- per month and applying the multiplier of 11 and after deducting one-third (1/3rd) for his personal expenses, the said award was passed.

Aggrieved by the award granted by the learned Tribunal, this appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was aged about 22 years and the learned Tribunal has wrongly passed the award of Rs. 1,60,000/- which is too less and is not in accordance with law. The tribunal has further committed mistake in applying the multiplier of 11 looking to the age of the claimants rather the multiplier should have been applied according to the age of the deceased. It is further stated that in fact the income of the deceased should have been assessed at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month and on the said basis the compensation should have been assessed, whereas the learned counsel for the respondents have stated that since no income certificate or income proof was produced before the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 1,800/- per month. It is further stated that the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 11 according to the law then prevailing. So the award passed by the learned Tribunal is justified and it does not require any interference by this Court.

To substantiate the argument, the learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on a case law reported in Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, , wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that the selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependants. There were a number of dependants of the deceased whose age may be different and therefore the age of the dependants have no nexus with the computation of compensation. So far as the deduction to be made for the personal expenses is concerned, it is further held in paragraph 14 of the judgment as under:

"14. Admittedly bodi the parents, 1st appellant Amrit Bhanu Shali (fadier) and 2nd appellant Smt. Sarlaben (mother) have been held to be dependants of deceased Ritesh Bhanu Shali and, therefore, the Tribunal held that the 1st appellant and the 2nd appellant have the right to get the compensation. On the date of the accident the 3rd appellant Mamta was not married but by the time the case was heard by the Tribunal the 3rd appellant Mamta had already been married. In these circumstances, she is not found to be dependent upon the deceased. Thus, both the parents being dependents i.e. father and the mother, the Tribunal rightly restricted the "personal and living expenses" of the deceased to 50% and contribution to the family was required to be taken as 50% as per the decision of this Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, .

So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, a reliance has been placed on the case law, reported in Laxmi Devi and Others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar and Another, . In the said case the Tribunal had assessed the notional income of deceased as Rs. 15000/- per annum as per the facts of the said case. But the learned Tribunal assessed the dependency at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per annum and the compensation was worked out to the tune of Rs. 1,69,000/-. The High Court came to the conclusion that there was no basis for assessing the notional income as Rs. 15,000/- per annum and in fact the income was much more man the evidence of Laxmi Devi was lead. The High Court further came to the conclusion that though the income of the deceased was Rs. 4200/- which was not reliable but the notional income should have been Rs. 36,000/- per annum i.e. Rs. 3000/- per month. For this proposition of law, the High Court held that the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- was prescribed in the year 1994 while the accident had taken place in the year 2004. The second reason given by the High Court was that even an unskilled labourer can easily earn Rs. 100/- per day i.e. Rs. 3000/- per month, and, therefore, the High Court held the income to be Rs. 36,000/- per annum. This proposition of law was approved by the Hon''ble Apex Court. In the present case also the income of the deceased has been shown to be Rs. 3000/- per month. Applying the principle as applied in the case of Laxmi Devi (supra), in our view the learned Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 1800/- per month which should have been Rs. 3000/- per month, i.e. Rs. 36000/- per annum. So far as the multiplier which could have been applied in this case is concerned, though in the claim petition, the age of the deceased is shown as 22 years 7 months but no documentary evidence in this regard has been produced but the post mortem report of the deceased is on record shows the age of the deceased as 27 years. So, in our view for the purpose of applying the multiplier, the age of the deceased should be assessed as 27 years. So, in our view applying the principle as held in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali ( AIR 2012 SC (Civ) 1954 ) (supra), the multiplier should have been applied on the age of the deceased and not on the age of the claimants. In the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , for the age between 26 to 30 years a multiplier of 17 has been applied, and so far as the deduction for personal expenses is concerned, since the deceased was a bachelor, as per the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali a deduction of 50% should have been made by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the amount of compensation comes as follows:

Rs. 3000 x 12 x 17 - 50 % : Rs. 3,06000/-

This apart, to our view the learned Tribunal has rightly granted a sum of Rs. 2000/-, for funeral expenses and also the interest of 6% per annum on the amount of award. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellants/claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 3,08,000/-, along with the interest as granted by the Tribunal. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent.