Sardaro and Others vs Darshan Singh and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal brought by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded to them by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court), Patiala (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 17.12.2010 in a sum of Rs. 5,20,000/- for the death of Buta Ram in a road side accident that took place on 21.09.2009. The claim petition had been brought by the widow and three children of the deceased u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Buta Ram was of the age of 47 years. He was having business of sale and purchase of buffaloes as well as dairy farming. He had a monthly income of Rs. 18,000/-. He met with an accident on 21.09.2009 and he was taken to PGI, Chandigarh where he died. A sum of Rs. 30,000/- was spent on treatment and transportation of the dead body and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was spent on his last rites. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- was claimed as compensation on his death.

The respondents not only denied the accident to have occurred in the manner given by the claimants with their vehicle, but also denied the expenses incurred in treatment, transportation and last rites. They have also denied the income and age of the deceased as alleged by the claimants.

Vide award dated 17.12.2010 learned Tribunal assessed a sum of Rs. 5,20,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants and awarded the same with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization thereof.

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that Buta Ram died at the age of 50 years. According to him, the multiplier was selected by the Tribunal taking his age as 51 years, which is not proper. According to him, his age was 50 years and the multiplier suggested for the case in which the victim had been in the age group of 46 to 50 is 15 as per the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, He has submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in adopting the multiplier of 11. He has also submitted that the deceased was dealing in the business of sale and purchase of buffaloes and was running a dairy and his income taken by the Tribunal at Rs. 5000/- per month is on a lower side.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have submitted that the deduction adopted by the Tribunal at 1/4th is not correct. According to him, multiplier suitable in this case would have been of 11 only, which was adopted by the Tribunal.

Though it was claimed that Buta Ram, the deceased was earning Rs. 18,000/- per month by sale and purchase of buffaloes and running of a dairy yet Balwinder Singh, PW-3 has stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month from the aforesaid business. Learned Tribunal has rightly noticed that Buta Ram was not an income tax payee. He was also not having any bank account and there was no account book maintained by him for his business which could show that he had an income of Rs. 15,000/- or so per month. In these circumstances, the amount of Rs. 5000/- per month taken as income of the deceased by the Tribunal has been proper.

Learned Tribunal has adopted the proper method to find out the dependency of the claimants. However, learned Tribunal has erred in selecting the multiplier. It is a case where the deceased was 50 years old. For victims in the age group of 46 to 50, the multiplier is of 13 as per Smt. Sarla Verma''s case supra. Therefore, the multiplier to be adopted in this case has to be of 13.

Taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 5000/- per month and taking the dependency of the claimants at 3/4th thereof, I find a sum of Rs. 45,000/- as annual dependency of the claimants. Multiplying it with 13, I find a sum of Rs. 5,85,000/- as the amount lost by the claimants in the death of Buta Ram. Adding to it a sum of Rs. 25,000 as compensation under the conventional heads, I find the appellants to be entitled to Rs. 6,10,000/- as compensation for the death of Buta Ram in the aforementioned accident. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 5,20,000/- to Rs. 6,10,000/-, which shall be payable with interest and in the proportion as given by the Tribunal.