Saraswatibai vs Chhitarlal and Others

S.K. Kulshrestha, J.—The appellant has filed this appeal against the award dated 17th July, 2002 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shajapur, in Claim Case No. 26/2002 by which against the claim of Rs. 10,00,000 the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 1,32,500.

Appellant is the mother of the deceased Shankarlal who was a labourer and the only son of the appellant. On 4.2.2002, on Agra-Bombay Road, while the deceased was going on foot at 8.00 p.m., a truck bearing Registration No. RJ 26 G 0379 approached from the side of Maksi and on account of the rashness and negligence of its driver, it collided with Shankarlal. Shankarlal was rushed to the hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries. It was stated that Shankarlal was earning Rs. 4,500 per month and was aged 30 years and on that basis the said amount was claimed as compensation.

The Insurance Company resisted the claim as also the amount of compensation demanded. It was also pleaded that the driver of the truck did not have a valid and effective licence and, therefore, the company was not liable in view of the said breach of policy conditions. It was further averred that the deceased was walking on the wrong side with the result the accident occurred.

The Claims Tribunal, in view of the evidence brought on record, came to the conclusion that income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000 per month and deducting 1/3rd from the annual income of Rs. 24,000, annual loss of dependency was arrived at Rs. 16,000. In view of the age of the mother, 52 years, multiplier of 8 was selected and the compensation of Rs. 1,28,000 was thus worked out under the caption ''Loss of dependency''. In addition, Rs. 2,000 were awarded for funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500 towards loss of estate.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

In appeal the only ground urged is that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and proper. Insofar as the monthly income of deceased Shankarlal is concerned, there was only the evidence of his mother, appellant herein, and on that basis it was not possible to hold that he was earning Rs. 4,500 as alleged. On a fair assessment of the evidence, therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000 per month and deducting 1/3rd therefrom, annual dependency was arrived at in the sum of Rs. 16,000. However, we find that for the age 52 years, at the time of accident, the proper multiplier as per Second Schedule, u/s 163A, would be 11. Thus, the loss of dependency would be Rs. 16,000 � 11 = Rs. 1,76,000. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500 for loss of estate, but nothing has been awarded for the loss of love and affection. We, therefore, award a sum of Rs. 5,000 in this behalf. Thus, the compensation to which the appellant is entitled is Rs. 1,85,500 (Rs. one lac eighty five thousand and five hundred). The enhanced amount of Rs. 53,000 shall bear interest @ 6% from the date of the application. This appeal is, thus partly allowed with no order as to costs.