Seema Chawla and Others vs Mohinder Singh and Others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This appeal is directed on behalf of the claimant against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, dated 28-2-1983, whereby a sum of Rs. 96,000/- has been awarded as compensation with 6 per cent interest per annum.

The accident took place on 22-9-1980 at about 8.30 A.M., on account of collision between bus No. DHP-2880 belonging to the Delhi Transport Corporation and truck No. DHL-1525, owned by Jasbir Singh respondent No. 2. As a result of this accident several passengers in the bus were killed. Five claim petitions were filed. One of the deceased was Surinder Singh Chawla, aged 40 years, who left behind the his widow Smt. Prem Chawia and three minor children i.e. two daughters and a son. The claim petition was filed by the said four heirs of the deceased.

The main controversy in this appeal is only with regard to the amount of compensation. The claimants chimed a sum of Rs. two lacs as compensation.'' It was stated that the income of the deceased was Rs. 1200/- or Rs. 1300/- per month as per the statement of the widow Smt. Prem Chawla (P.W. 9). According to her, the deceased used to give her Rs. 1000/- per month for house hold expenses. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the assessment order Exhibit P9 for the assessment year 1978-79 and the assessment order Exhibit P8 for the assessment year 1979-80, came to the conclusion that financial dependency of the claimants, upon the deceased was Rs. 800/-per month i.e. Rs. 9600/- per annum. The learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of ''10'' and consequently determined a sum of Rs. 96,000/- as compensation.

Learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that the dependancy shall not be less than Rs. 1000/- per month. Moreover, the multiplier was too inadequate. It should have been ''20'' keeping in view the age of the deceased and the heirs left behind by him. He also submitted that the claimants were entitled to the interest at the rats of 12% per cent instead of & per cent, as allowed by the learned Tribunal, In support of his contention, for enhancement of compensation, he referred to Rajasthan State Transport Corporation situated at Parivahan Marg, Jaipur v. Bhafan Lai Bishnsi 1987 (1) P.L.R. 279 and Smi. Sushila and Ors. v. Delhi Union Territory through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Anr. 1987 (1) P.L.R. 58. He also referred to Jyotsna Dey and Ors. v. The State of Assam and Ors. 1987 (1) P.L.R. 646 (Supreme Court), Cross objections have been also filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 challenging the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on record.

As regards financial dependancy, I do not Sod any justification for interference in appeal. The learned Tribunal has rightly determined that the financial dependancy of the claimants was Rs. 9600/- per annum. As regards multiplier, it could not be disputed on behalf of the respondents that it was-inadequate. The deceased was 40 years of age at the time of accident and has left behind his widow and three minor children. In a recent case Jyotsna Dev and Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court applied a multiplier of 25'' when, the deceased was 45 years old. However, the compensation was reduced by 1/5th on consideration of the fact that it was being paid in lump-sum and uncertainties of life. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the age of the deceased, the widow and three minor children left behind, a multiplier of ''20'' will meet the ends of justice. The claimants will also be entitled to the interest at the rate of 12% per cent instead of 6 per cent per annum as allowed by the Tribunal. All the claimants, will get the amount of compensation proportionately, as determined by the Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, accepted to this extent. The claimants are now held entitled to Rs. 1,92,000/- as compensation and the award is modified accordingly. The cross-objections filed on behalf of respondent Nos. } and 2 are dismissed with no order as to costs.

It may also be made clear that the learned Tribunal has stated in the award that the claimants paid the court fee of Rs. 10/- only in view of the orders of the High Court, subject to the decision of the writ petition. Tilt then, the writ petition was not decided and, therefore, it was ordered that full amount of court fee that would have been paid on these petitions shall be deducted from the amount of compensation as and when it is received. It has been stated at the Bar that civil writ petition No. 1104 of 1981 was decided on 21-12-1984 and, therefore, the claimants were not to pay any further court fee. That being so, the question of deducting any amount of court fee from the amount of compensation does not arise.