Ramgopal Rathore and Another vs Rattan Lal and Others

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—The unfortunate parents of deceased-Chhedilal Rathore are the Appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgit, District Bilaspur (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 28-4-2004, passed in Claim Case No. 8/2003.

As against the compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- claimed by the Appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased-Chhedilal Rathore, by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 9-1 -2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,13,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 8% per annum in the event of the insurer''s failure to pay the compensation within 30 days of the passing of the award.

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the claimants'' son Chhedilal Rathore died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 9-1-2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Matador bearing registration No. MP-26D/2876; as the above offending vehicle Matador on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

As the Respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality.

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs. 15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants'' dependency was assessed at Rs. 10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 10;000/- with the multiplier of 11, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,10.000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,13,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Chhedilal Rathore in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 1,13,000/- @ 8% per annum in the event of the insurer''s failure to pay the above amount of compensation within 30 days of the passing of the award.

Shri H.V. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants'' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs. 15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 1,13,000/- only.

Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3, the United India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish that the deceased had any regular income, the compensation of Rs. 1,13,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meagre amount of compensation, nor a bonanza.

Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 1,13,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

True the claimants pleaded that their son Chhedilal Rathore used to earn Rs. 4,000/- per month by working in the shop of his elder brother Bajarang, no reliable and clinching evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to that extent. Even the elder brother of the deceased in whose shop the deceased was said to be working was not examined before the Tribunal. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants'' evidence about the income of the deceased.

Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 15,000/- per artnum in the year 2003 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration.

Considering that deceased-Chhedilal Rathore was aged about 21 years on the date of the accident, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs. 80-90/- per day even by working as an unskilled labour in the year 2003. We, therefore, propose ro recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,500/- per month and Rs. 30,000/- per annum.

Considering that deceased-Chhedilal Rathore was unmarried on the date of the accident and the claimants are parents of the deceased, the deduction of 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses would be appropriate in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed Mohammed Jameel reported in (2009) 2 SCC 255 : Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others Vs. Mohd. Jameel and Another, . The claimants'' dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs. 15,000/- per annum by decucting 50% of Rs. 30,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased.

Considering that the claimants are parents of the deceased, multiplier of 10 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Shri Laxman Iyer and Another, , wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10,

By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 15,000/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- as compensation for the death of their son Chhedilal Rathore in the motor accident.

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.

Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, 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. 47,000/- at Rs. 4,000/-.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the Appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 1.13,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,60,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs. 4,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 47,000/-.

Respondent No. 3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months'' time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 51,000/- (Rs. 47,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs. 4,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 47,000/-) before the concerned Claims Tribunal.

No order as to costs.