Ramesh Khatic and Another vs Raju and Another

P.K. Jaiswal, J.—This appeal is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 88/2000. The claimants are parents of one Surendra Kumar, a boy aged 14 years, who died in a motor accident on 14.12.1999 involving tractor bearing registration No. MPW-5546 owned by respondent No, 2, driven by respondent No. 1.

The appellants inter alia contended that their son Surendra Kumar was a student and at the time of accident he was in Class 7, claimed compensation of Rs. 1,54,500 (Rupees one lac fifty-four thousand five hundred only) as per Schedule II of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

From the evidence on record, the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that at the time of death the deceased was aged 14 years and after applying the principle of notional income in accordance with Second Schedule framed u/s 163A determined the income of the deceased notionally at Rs. 15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand only) per annum and assessed the annual dependency of the parents of the deceased at Rs. 5,000 per annum and applying the multiplier of 15, determined compensation at Rs. 75,000 (Rupees seventy-five thousand only). The Claims Tribunal added Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500 as expenses towards other head, thus awarded total compensation of Rs. 79,500 (Rupees seventy-nine thousand five hundred only) to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the application. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Claims Tribunal committed error in determining the annual dependency of the appellants at the rate of 5,000 per annum, i.e., 1/3rd of the income of the deceased whereas annual dependency should have been determined at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per month i.e., 2/3 of the income of the deceased. In support of the said arguments he drew my attention to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Prakash Narain Agnihotri and Others, and argued that in the case of a young lady aged 16 years, notional income of Rs. 15,000 per annum as per Second Schedule of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act was applied and a total compensation of Rs. 1,80,300 awarded by the Tribunal was upheld and appeal of the Insurance Company was dismissed. Accordingly, Mr. Singhal, learned Counsel for the appellant argued that in this case also, the compensation needs to be enhanced on applying dependency of the parents of the deceased at the rate of 2/3rd of the notional income i.e., Rs. 10,000 per annum. He also invited my attention to the decision of Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Manju Devi and Anr. v. Musafir Paswan and Anr. reported in IV (2005) ACC 15 (SC) : 2005 ACJ 99, in which a 13 years old boy was killed in an accident on 2.7.1998. The Hon''ble Apex Court has held that award of compensation should be made by multiplier method as it ensures payment of just compensation and it brings uniformity and certainty to the awards and by applying the multiplier of 15, for a boy of 13 years of age assessed the annual dependency at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per annum and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,25,000.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that in this case a 14 years old boy was killed in a accident on 14.2.1999. The learned Tribunal assessed notional income for non-earning person at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per annum and since the claimants are mother and father of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal assessed 1/3rd of the total income of the deceased i.e., Rs. 5,000 per annum and after applying multiplier of 15, awarded Rs. 75,000 which is just and proper compensation. He submitted that deceased was a young boy and in future he will be married and looking to his family prospects assessed the annual dependency of the parents at Rs. 5,000 per annum i.e., 1/3rd of the total income of the deceased, which is just and proper and in accordance with law. He drew my attention to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ramnath Vs. Prasanna Kumar Jain and Others, Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sujan Pal Singh and Another Vs. Chandan Singh Patel and Others, and Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Khatoonbi and Others Vs. Prithvipal Singh and Another, and argued that in the case of a young boy of 15 years of age the Division Bench of this Court awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 70,000 and Rs. 50,000 only and the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and in accordance with the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From the records, it is seen that no evidence was available on record for the income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal by assuming his income to be Rs. 15,000 per annum as per Second Schedule of Section 163 of the Act assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 15,000 per annum and as the appellants are mother and father of the deceased and looking to the family prospects of the deceased assessed 1/3rd of the total income of the deceased as annual dependency and by applying the multiplier of 15, awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000 per annum. In view of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Manju Devi (supra) and law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company (supra), the learned Tribunal should have taken the annual dependency of the appellants to be Rs. 10,000 per annum, i.e., 2/3rd of the total income of the deceased instead of Rs. 5,000 per annum. Thus, I determined the compensation on the basis of 2/3 rd of notional income of the deceased which comes to Rs, 10,000 per annum and by applying multiplier of 15, the total compensation comes to Rs. 1,50,000. To this a further sum of Rs. 4,500 as expenses on various heads has to be added which comes to total compensation of Rs. 1,54,500 (Rupees one lac fifty four thousand five hundred only).

In the opinion of this Court, in the facts and circumstances of this case and looking to the fact that parents had lost the young boy of 14 years, the compensation of Rs. 1,54,500 (Rupees one lac fifty-four thousand five hundred only) would be a reasonable compensation.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,54,500 (Rupees one lac-fifty four thousand five hundred only). The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 6% (six percent) per annum from a the date of this appeal till payment.

The respondents on 27.9.2002 filed cross-objection which was taken on record on 10.2.2003. This Court also directed the respondents to deposit 50% of the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal within a month. The respondents failed to deposit he amount of compensation as directed by this Court on 10.2.2003 and as such the stay granted on 10.2.2003 was vacated and it is further clarified that since they failed to comply with the stay order dated 10.2.2003 and as such the cross-objection shall not be considered at the time of hearing. Till this date no amount has been deposited by the respondents and as such the cross-objection filed by the respondents are liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.

In the result, the appeal of the appellants is allowed and award dated 18.8.2001 is modified in terms of the order as indicated above, without any order as to costs.