AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.K. Keshote, J.—This appeal, u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ''the Act, 1988'') is directed by the claimants-appellants against the award dated 16.1.1998, of learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bayana, District Bharatpur, in Claim Case No. 65 of 1994.
Under the impugned award, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000 as compensation in favour of the claimants-appellants for the death of their son Gouri. The deceased was aged 4 years.
Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that even where the deceased, minor son of the claimants- appellants, was not the earning member, on his death his notional income is to be taken at Rs. 15,000 per annum and 15 is appropriate multiplier, which ought to have been adopted by the learned Tribunal. But it has not been done and the learned Tribunal has granted a lump sum compensation of Rs. 90,000 in favour of the claimants-appellants, which is not reasonable and justified. In support of his contentions the learned Counsel for claimants-appellants, placing reliance on the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Manju Devi v. Musafir Paswan 2005 ACJ 99 (SC). It is submitted that where the claimants-appellants fail to prove the income of the deceased, it is to be taken at Rs. 15,000 per annum. In that case the deceased was taken a non-earning member of the family. The learned Counsel for claimants-appellants submits that the deceased be taken a non-earning member as what their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court took in Manju Devi''s case (supra).
On the other hand, the counsel for Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, the non-claimants-respondent No. 1, submitted that the deceased was minor son of claimants-appellants, aged 4 years and thus the amount of compensation of Rs. 90,000 awarded by the learned Tribunal in their favour is just and reasonable in which this court may not make any enhancement. As regards to the decision on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for claimants-appellants, it is urged that in the case before Hon''ble Supreme Court the deceased was a boy aged 13 years and thus this case is clearly distinguishable from the case before the Apex Court.
I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.
A look at the Second Schedule to the Act, 1988, I find that up to the age of 15 years the multiplier is stated of 15. When Parliament, in the Second Schedule to the Act, 1988, has not made any difference in the multiplier to be adopted in the case of death of a boy or girl up to the age of 15 years. I am of the opinion that in the case of deceased, being a non-earning member of the family, there cannot be made any difference with reference to the age.
In the facts of this case I am satisfied that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Manju Devi''s case 2005 ACJ 99 (SC). There in a case of death of a boy of 13 years, their Lordships of the Supreme Court took yearly income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000, taking him a non-earning member as per the Second Schedule and therefrom the amount has not been deducted, towards his personal expenses. Thus for the purpose of determining the compensation for non-earning member under the head of loss of economic dependency, income is to be taken at Rs. 15,000 per annum and the multiplier of 15 is to be applied. The amount of compensation under the head of loss of economic dependency of the family in this matter comes to Rs. 2,25,000 (Rs. 15,000 x 15). The learned Tribunal, under this head, has awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000. The enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 1,35,000 (Rs. 2,25,000 - Rs. 90,000).
On this enhanced amount claimants-appellants shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till 31.12.2000 and at the rate of 9 per cent from 1.1.2001 till its realisation.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, non-claimant-respondent No. 1, is directed to deposit the amount of enhanced compensation with interest thereon, as directed above, in this court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, by account payee cheque/DD/pay order, drawn in the name of Registrar (Administration) of this court.
On deposit of the amount aforesaid by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, respondent No. 1, the court will pass the order of its investment/disbursement. The Registry to place the matter for orders on the Board immediately after the amount is deposited as per the aforesaid directions.