Sarla Devi & Others vs Mohit Kumar Indoria & Another

Alok Singh, J

1) Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants against the judgment and award dated 03.06.2009 passed by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Hardiwar in M.A.C.P. No.142 of 2007, Smt. Sarla Devi & others vs. Mohit Kumar Indoria & another, whereby the

learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and awarded an amount of Rs.7,27,000/-along with interest @ 6% per annum thereon from the date of

filing of the claim petition till the date of realization.

2) Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by the claimants, i.e, unfortunate wife, two sons and a daughter of the deceased alleging

therein that on 03.10.2007 at about 12 noon, the deceased was coming from Tehsil Ramnagar along with Bhajan Singh, peon; and when they reached

at Ramnagar Jwalapur road, a motorcycle bearing no.UA08-H-6056 coming from opposite direction rashly and negligently dashed the deceased, due

to which, the deceased sustained serious injuries and died. At the time of accident, the deceased was about 53 years of age and was earning a sum of

Rs.15,376/- per month.

3) The Tribunal, after considering the material evidence on record, held that the rider (driver) of the vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and

negligently, which resulted in the accident causing death of the deceased. The Tribunal further found that the driver of the vehicle was having a valid

licence and that the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition for a total sum of

Rs.7,27,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization.

4) The Tribunal, after considering the evidence led by the parties, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,376/- per month (rounded off the

income as Rs.15,000/- x 12 = Rs.1,80,000/- per annum). After deducting one third of the annual salary of the deceased towards the expenses which

he would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.1,20,000/-per annum

(Rs.1,80,000 x 1/3rd =Rs.60,000). By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.1,20,000/-with the multiplier of ‘6’, the compensation was

worked out to Rs.7,20,000/- (Rs.1,20,000 x 6= Rs.7,20,000). Besides this, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium and

Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses along with 6% interest from the date of filing the claim petition.

5) Learned counsel for the appellants has only contended that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of ‘6’ on the basis of the age of

the dependants; and the multiplier should depend on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the dependants. In Munna Lal Jain vs. Vipin

Kumar Sharma (2015) 6 SCC 347, a three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the multiplier should depend on the age of the

deceased and not on the age of the dependants. In Sarla Verma & Ors vs. Delhi Transport Corp.& another AIR 2009 SC 3104, a two Judge Bench

of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the multiplier should be chosen from the table provided under the Second Schedule with reference to the

age of the deceased. Considering the aforesaid principle of law, this Court is of the opinion that since the deceased was about 53 years of age on the

date of incident, hence, the multiplier of ‘11’ should have been applied by the Tribunal.

6) The Tribunal has rightly deducted one third (1/3rd) of the annual salary of the deceased towards the expenses which he would have incurred

towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Thus, after deducting one-third of the annual salary of the deceased towards the expenses which he

would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive, the claimants’ dependency is, now, assessed at Rs.1,20,000/- per annum

(Rs.1,80,000 minus 1/3rd of Rs.1,80,000 = Rs.1,20,000).

7) Now, by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.1,20,000/-with the multiplier of ‘11’ (as has been held in preceding paras of this judgment),

the compensation is worked out to Rs.13,20,000/- (Rs.1,20,000 x 11 = Rs.13,20,000/-). Apart from this, the appellants are also entitled for the funeral

expenses and loss of consortium @ Rs.2000/- and Rs.5000/- respectively, as has been awarded by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner

has only argued on the point of multiplier, which has been duly addressed and/or answered in this judgment.

8) In this way, a total compensation of Rs.13,27,000/-is awarded to the claimants. The said amount of compensation will carry interest at the rate of

six percent (6%) per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

9) The present appeal is allowed and the impugned award of the Tribunal is modified in terms of above. The No order as to costs.