Rambha Devi And Another vs Lakhwinder Singh And Others

Avneesh Jhingan, J

The present appeal is against award dated 17.1.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').

The appellants are widow and son of Lal Chand. Respondent No.1 is driver of the Xylo Car bearing registration No.PB-01-A-1880 (for short 'the offending vehicle') and respondents No. 2 & 3 are the owner and insurer (i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Limited) of the offending vehicle. Parents of the deceased have been arrayed as proforma respondents No. 4 and 5.

The facts are not disputed by the parties that a motor vehicular accident took place on 13.3.2017. The said accident proved fatal for Lal Chand, aged 42 years. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. FIR No. 34 dated 14.3.2017 was registered at Police Station Garhshankar.

In the claim petition filed, it was pleaded that he was a Mason. The claimants failed to prove the monthly earning of the deceased by producing any reliable evidence. However, AW2 Raj Kumar deposed before the Tribunal stating that the deceased was working as Mason with him and he was paying Rs. 15,000/- per month to deceased. He failed to produce any evidence with regard to payment being made to him. The Tribunal considered the deceased to be an unskilled labourer and assessed monthly income as Rs. 8000/-, 25% future prospects was awarded, 1/4th deduction for self-expenses was made as the deceased was survived by four dependants and multiplier of 14 was applied as deceased was 42 years of age. A sum of Rs. 13,30,000/- was awarded as compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The amount awarded included Rs. 70,000/- under conventional heads.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents produced by them.

Leraned counsel for the appellants contends that the deceased was a Mason and the Tribunal erred in considering him as an unskilled labourer.

Learned counsel for the insurer argued that the claimants failed to prove the monthly earning and occupation of the deceased and the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly earning as Rs. 8000/- per month.

In the claim petition it was pleaded that the deceased was working as Mason. AW2 Raj Kumar made a deposition before the Tribunal that the deceased was working with him as a Mason though he failed to produce any document to substantiate the fact that he was paying Rs. 15,000/-per month. The said evidence was not rebutted by respondents. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to consider the deceased as semi-skilled labourer and relying upon the minimum wages prevalent in the State at the time of accident, his monthly income is assessed as Rs. 8400/-. The compensation is re-calculated considering his monthly income as Rs. 8400/-.

Sr. No.

Particulars

Amount awarded

1.

Monthly income

Rs. 8400/-

2.

25% future prospects

Rs. 2100/-

3.

1/4th deduction for selfexpenses

Rs. 2625/-

4.

Applying multiplier of 14 (7875x12x14)

Rs. 13,23,000/-

5.

Conventional heads

Rs. 70,000/-

6.

Total

Rs. 13,93,000/-

The award dated 17.1.2018 is modified to the extent that amount awarded of Rs.13,30,000/- by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 13,93,000/-

The claimants shall be entitled to the enhanced amount alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the amount.

The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.