Samar Singh vs V.N. Shukla and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—This matter was placed in the Lok Adalat where learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 along with the officer of the insurance company, submits that there is no likelihood of compromise and the impugned award dated 25.7.2001 passed in Claim Case No. 24 of 2001 is just and proper. He further submits that the matter may be decided on merits.

In view of the Notification No. 4745/A.R./SEC./H.C.L.S.C, Bilaspur dated 13.11.2006 of the High Court Legal Services Committee, issued by order of the Hon''ble Chief Justice, the case has been received by this Bench, as the insurance company did not agree for the reasonable amount payable to the beneficiary. The matter is taken up for decision on merits.

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

The appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation, i.e., Rs. 53,000 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum awarded by the Fifth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur vide award dated 25.7.2001 passed in Claim Case No. 24 of 2001.

In this case, daughter (Santoshi) of the claimant, who was 7 years old, was killed in an accident, which took place on 21.2.2000. The Tribunal having considered the evidence on record held that the accident took place due to negligent driving of the respondent No. 2. Having considered the material available on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition of the appellant, with costs and accordingly awarded the compensation of Rs. 53,000 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, payable by the respondent No. 3.

In support of his contention, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant cited a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Manju Devi v. Musafir Paswan 2005 ACJ 99 (SC), wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court in para 3 has held as under:

(3) As set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a boy of 13 years of age, a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied. As per the Second Schedule, he being a non-earning person, a sum of Rs. 15,000 must be taken as the income. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 2,25,000.

The facts of the present case are similar to the case cited by learned Counsel for the appellant, except that in the present case the age of the deceased girl was 7 years at the time of accident.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the decision in the case of Manju Devi (supra), this Court is of the view that the same multiplier would be applicable up to the age of 15 years. Thus a sum of Rs. 15,000 must be taken as yearly income of the deceased and the compensation must be awarded as quantified by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the above decision.

In the light of the above decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, this appeal is allowed. Amount of award is accordingly modified to a sum of Rs. 2,25,000. The appellant shall be entitled to get interest and costs, as directed by the Tribunal. The amount already paid shall be adjusted.

Ordered accordingly.

Certified copy, as per Rules.