Ram Mehar and Others vs Ram Parkash and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is claimants'' appeal for enhancement of compensation. Their claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") has been allowed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panipat (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 1.11.2011. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- as compensation for the death of Ram Kali in a roadside accident that took place on 9.5.2010. The claimants are sons of said Ram Kali. Ram Kali, who met with a fatal accident on 9.5.2010 had been of the age of 45 years. She had been an agricultural labourer and used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month. A sum of Rs. 30,000/- was spent in her last rites and transportation of the dead body. Claimants have asserted themselves to be legal heirs of the deceased. The aforesaid averments have been denied by the respondents.

Learned Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,500/- per month treating her as non-earning person. Dependency of the claimants was taken as Rs. 10,000/- per annum after deducting 1/3rd from the income towards the expenses of the deceased on herself. Taking the age of the deceased between 51 and 55 years, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 11 and assessed the compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- to which he added a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and another sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses.

Learned counsel for the appellants has questioned the assessment of income of the deceased by learned Tribunal at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. According to him, in villages, the women from labour class besides looking after her household do the labour work and earn quite a good amount. According to him, there was no reason for the Tribunal not to treat the deceased as a labourer and assess her income as an unskilled labourer. He has submitted that vide notification dated 12.3.2010, the State of Haryana had revised the minimum wages of unskilled labourers to Rs. 4,214/- per month. He has submitted that the Tribunal was required to take this amount as income of the deceased and assess compensation accordingly.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted that there is no evidence on the record to prove that the deceased was a labourer. According to him, the Tribunal has, therefore, rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum which is laid down by the second schedule appended to the Act for non-earning persons.

Though, the claimants claim that their mother, Ram Kali was an agricultural labourer and was earning quite a good amount, even if she is taken as a household lady, it cannot be said that she was a non-earning person. The services of a household lady to her children and family members cannot be taken to be the income of a non-earning person. Otherwise, there is nothing on the record to suggest that the deceased was not an agricultural labourer. Therefore, I have no hesitation in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,214/-.

Taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,214/- and taking the dependency of the claimants at 2/3rd of this income and multiplying the monthly dependency with 12, I find a sum of Rs. 33,720/- as annual dependency of the claimants. Multiplying it further with 11, the multiplier selected rightly by the Tribunal, I find the claimants to have lost a sum of Rs. 3,70,920/- in the death of Ram Kali. Adding to it a sum of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in the name of expenses on conventional heads, I assess a sum of Rs. 3,90,920/- as compensation in favour of the appellants. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- assessed by the Tribunal as compensation payable to the appellants is enhanced to Rs. 3,90,920/-. This amount shall be payable to the appellants with interest and in the proportion as allowed by the Tribunal.