Santosh Kumari and Others vs Karamat Ali and Others

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.—Appellants-claimants being the victims of a Vehicular accident, have filed a claim petition before Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Jammu on 21st of October, 1999 for grant of compensation which came to be allowed vide award dated 22nd of January, 2002,

impugned in this appeal. In terms of impugned award, compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,24,600/- came to be passed in favour of the claimants

against respondent No. 3-Insurer-Oriental Insurance Company.

The appellants-Claimants are not satisfied with the quantum of award and have prayed for enhancement of the same.

The sole point around which the entire controversy revolves is whether the multiplier came to be rightly applied and income of the deceased

came to be rightly assessed.

The appellants-claimants have led evidence. Their evidence has remained un-rebutted. There is no dispute about the liability of respondent No.

The dispute is only about the adequacy of the compensation. Appellants-claimants have examined Ashok Kumar and Om Parkash as witnesses

and also one claimant, namely, Santosh Kumari has also appeared in the witness box.

Ashok Kumar has stated that the age of the deceased was 36 years and his monthly income was Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. Om Parkash has

not given any definite income of the deceased but has stated that he had paid Rs. 1.50 lac to the deceased in the year 1988 for selling Paddy

Crop. His statement was deferred for producing record which he could not. Santosh Kumari, Widow has also deposed that the age of the

deceased was 37 years and the deceased was paying Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 7000/- to her for house hold expenses. Sardari Lal, father of the

deceased has deposed that yearly income of the deceased was Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/-.

There is no dispute about the age of the deceased. Thus Tribunal had rightly come to the conclusion that the age of the deceased was 37 years

at the time of accident. As per Schedule-II appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, multiplier 16 was applicable but the Tribunal has applied

multiplier 12.

I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier 12. The fact of the matter is that multiplier 15 is applicable after

deducting the one as per ratio of Apex Court judgments. The Apex Court in a case titled U. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Bala

and Ors. 2006 AIR SC 3613 held that the choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased. The Apex Court has also in a case

titled Collector of Customs Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., applied multiplier 15. So I deem it proper to assess the compensation by applying

multiplier 15.

Keeping in view the evidence discussed hereinabove, it could be safely be held that income of the deceased was not less than Rs. 4500/- per

month. The Tribunal has rightly held that the income of the deceased was not less than Rs. 4500/- but has fallen in error while making deductions.

It is now beaten law of the land that usually one third is to be deducted out of monthly income as pocket expenses of the deceased. Accordingly

one third is to be deducted from the income of the deceased in order to assess the compensation. Thus, I am of the considered view that the

claimants-appellants have lost the source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 3000/-.

In the given circumstances, I deem it proper to modify the impugned award and hold that the appellants-claimants are entitled to Rs.

3000x12x15= Rs. 5,40,000/- with interest @ 9% from the date of claim petition i.e. 21st of October, 1999 till its final realization.

Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and the appeal is disposed of.

Cross Appeal No. 22/2003:

Respondent No. 3 has filed this cross appeal. Though this cross appeal is within time but merits to be dismissed on the following grounds:

That respondent No. 3-Insurer-Objector cannot challenge the quantum of compensation. CIMA No. 55/2002 also came to be decided on merit

as discussed above. Thus cross appeal merits to be dismissed and objections merits to be turned down.

Accordingly, Cross appeal is dismissed.

At this stage, learned Counsel for the appellants-claimants and learned Counsel for respondent No. 3-Insurer stated at the Bar that the Insurer has

satisfied the impugned award. Insurer is directed to satisfy the award in full and deposit the balance amount within two months before the Tribunal

and the Tribunal is directed to release the amount as per the terms and conditions contained in the award.

Accordingly, CIMA No. 55/2002 is disposed of and Cross Appeal No. 22/2003 is dismissed.

Send down the records.