Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Kishore Kumar and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal brought by the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer against the award dated 22.01.2011 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court) Sonepat (for short ''the Tribunal''). The challenge by way of this appeal is to the calculation aspect of the compensation. Kishore Kumar and Smt. Devenderi, the claimants are the parents of Rahul, deceased, who died on account of the injuries suffered in a road side accident that took place on 20.01.2010. Vide the impugned award, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,82,072/- as compensation to the claimants. On 20.01.2010 Rahul met with an accident while he and his uncle Joni were travelling on a motorcycle. The accident occurred with three wheeler bearing registration No. HR-69-9040 driven by respondent No. 1. Rahul suffered serious injuries, which proved fatal. Rahul was 22 years of age and a student of B.A. Part II. He was running a tuition centre at his house and was earning Rs. 8000/- per month.

The claim petition has been resisted by the respondents, who not only denied the accident to have occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the three-wheeler but have also controverted the claim of the appellants with regard to the age and income of the deceased.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the deceased had been stated to be 22 years of age and was a student of BA Part-II. According to him, learned Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs. 4000/- per month. He has submitted that the cut applied to this income to assess the dependency of the claimants is 1/3rd whereas it should be 1/2. According to him, the multiplier has been selected by learned Tribunal on the basis of the age of the deceased and that is also not correct. According to him, in case the victim is a bachelor, the multiplier would have to be governed by the age of the claimants. He has further submitted that the age of the claimants is between 40 to 45 years and the multiplier should have been of 14 instead of 18. According to him, assessing the compensation by applying a cut of 1/2 and taking the multiplier of 14, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal would clearly be proved to be on a very higher side.

Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, on the other hand, has submitted that the cut and the multiplier have been properly taken. According to him, the claimants are two and the cut of 1/3rd has been rightly adopted by the Tribunal.

It is a case where the claimants are the parents of the deceased. In case of an unmarried person, it cannot be believed that he would have been giving 2/3rd of his income to his parents. At this age, people spend most of their income on themselves. One of the claimants is father and father is normally not a dependent of the deceased-son. Hence, to determine the dependency of the claimants, the deduction of 1/2 should have been adopted. Taking the monthly dependency of the claimants at Rs. 2000/- and annual dependency comes at Rs. 24,000/-. Now I have to decide as to what should be the multiplier in this case.

The multiplier in this case has been taken with regard to the age of the deceased. Here the claimant has been survived by people of the age elder to him. The claimants are the parents and the multiplier in case of death of a bachelor would have to be taken with regard to the age of the claimants. The age of the claimants is 40-42 years. The mother being the younger of the two, her age should be taken to be the governing factor for selecting the multiplier. In case the age is 36 to 40 years, the multiplier as laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, . Multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 24,000/- with 15, I find a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- to be the loss suffered by the claimants in the death of Rahul. Adding to it, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of love and affection, I find a sum of Rs. 3,80,000/- payable to the claimants. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs. 5,82,072/- to Rs. 3,80,000/-. The amount shall be paid with interest and in the other terms of the award of the Tribunal.