Shankar Lal and Others vs Shriram and Others

J.K. Ranka, J.�Instant appeal u/s. 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimants-appellants seeking enhancement of the award dt.18/12/2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in claim case No. 365/2004 by which a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,36,000/- has been awarded to the claimants-appellants.

The brief facts, as has been gathered on the basis of the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and on perusal of the order impugned, are that on 08/12/1996 at about 7.30 - 8.00 pm in the evening, one Babu Lal was going on Scooter No. RJ-14-9-M-2534 and while he reached near Durga Pura Krishi Farm, a Car bearing No. RJ-14-2-C-2341, coming towards Sanganer, its driver, while driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and on a wrong side, hit the scooter of Babu Lal as a result of which the Scooter lost its control and Babu Lal dashed with a tree guard on the divider on the main road and then the blood started oozing out from his head and other parts and he died on the spot. The car driver ran away from the spot. Thereafter, on the next day, an FIR bearing No. 674/1996 was lodged at Police Station Sanganer by one Gopal claiming himself as an eye-witness of the incident and thereafter, after investigation, the police submitted challan before the competent court of jurisdiction. During the course of investigation, it transpired that the respondent No. 1 was driver of the offending vehicle while the respondent No. 2 was its owner and the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company.

It was the version of the claimants-appellants in the claim petition that the deceased was aged about 33 years and while working as labourer, was earning an income of Rs. 3,000/- per month and his old aged parents (father & mother) and also a younger sister were dependent upon him and on account of demise of deceased Babu Lal, the only bread earner, the family suffered heavily.

The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence and material on record including the FIR, challan and statements, framed as many as five issues including the issue of relief and arrived at a finding that the accident did occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the respondent No. 1, however, it allowed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,36,000/- only which according to the claimants-appellants is quite low. Hence, the present appeal.

Mr. S.N. Kumawat, ld. counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that the claim allowed at Rs. 1,36,000/- is too meager as just and proper compensation is required to be allowed and at the time when the accident occurred, the deceased was aged about 33 years and was a healthy man and who was looking after the family and all the three family members namely; father, mother and sister who were dependent upon him and on account of this unfortunate incident, the entire family suffered badly. At the time of accident, father of the deceased was aged about 70 years and mother was aged about 60 years and both were infirm while the mother was also blind. He submitted that the deceased was having permanency of income and therefore, future prospect in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court is required to be allowed. He further contended that age of the deceased was 33 years and therefore, multiplier applied of 15 is without any basis and on the basis of the age of the deceased, the Multiplier of 16 ought to have been adopted. He further contended that 1/3 deduction is also not proper looking to the number of family members/dependents. He further contended that meager amount has been allowed on account of loss of love and affection and considering the above facts, the compensation needs to be enhanced appropriately. He relied upon judgment rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, ; Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, .

Per-contra, ld. counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that considering the fact that the incident is of the year 1996, the amount allowed by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,36,000/- is fair and reasonable and she strongly opposed enhancement of any amount under any head. She further contended that the deceased was bachelor and in a case of a bachelor, the multiplier is required to be adopted taking into consideration the age of the parents and not the age of the deceased and accordingly, she contended that the multiplier of 5 has rightly been adopted. She further contended that since nothing has been proved about permanency or steady source of income of the deceased, therefore, future prospect is not required to be allowed in the light of the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, as also Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, and finally she contended that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the record of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal, in my view, has [correctly adopted income of Rs. 3,000/- per month on the basis of the evidence placed on record and in my view, looking to the incident of 1996, e appears to be fair and reasonable and therefore, in so far as the income is concerned, it is not required to be interfered.

Admittedly, the appellant was aged about 33 years and was a bachelor and either was a carpenter or a labourer but was certainly a healthy man who had permanency of income and steady source of income and even a labourer or a carpenter can be said to have permanency or steady source of income and therefore, the future prospect is required to be allowed for the subsequent reasons as well.

While the counsel for the claimants-appellants relied upon judgments rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, as also judgment in the case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, , the counsel for the Insurance Company relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, as also the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, . This Court in the case of Jagdish & Ors. v. Abdul Habib & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3690/2008) decided on 4th March, 2014 has considered this issue at length after considering the judgments rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (supra), Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. (supra), Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. (supra), Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (supra) as also the latest judgments of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, , G. Dhanasekar Vs. M.D., Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., ; Syed Sadiq etc. Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Company, and also earlier judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of RSRTC Vs. Pusha Ram and Others, , Savita Sharma Vs. Kailash Chand, and this Court in the case of Sona & Ors. v. Ajit Mohammad & Ors. (CMA No. 3120/2009) decided on 18.9.2013. In my view, considering the above authorities, the future prospects is to be allowed both in case of a person who had permanency in employment may be government or otherwise so also to be allowed in a case of self employed person with having sufficient stability and steadiness in source of income and can be allowed in the case, where a person may be earning on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis as they also increase their income/charges after some time as the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up. The Government also increases wages as also other emoluments on periodical basis based on the index, accordingly it would be appropriate to allow future prospects as it can be said that there was steady income. Since the deceased was less than 33 years of age, therefore, future prospects will be enhanced by 50% of the income.

In so far as the multiplier is concerned, in my view, while I agree with the submission of counsel for the respondents that the deceased being a bachelor, the multiplier is required to be adopted taking into consideration the age of parents but the age can be taken lower of the parents and in the instant case, since the age of the mother is 60 years, therefore, in my view, the multiplier is required to be adopted at 9 in-stead of 5 applied by the Tribunal, in view of judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra).

In my view, the amount allowed on account of loss of love and affection of the parents at Rs. 5,000/- each and Rs. 4,000/- for one sister appears to be on the lower side and it is directed to be taken at Rs. 25,000/- of the parents (each) and Rs. 25,000/- for the sister. An amount of Rs. 5,000/- is directed to be taken on account of funeral expenses.

It is also an admitted fact that the dependents are three, therefore, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the deduction should be 1/3 which has rightly been applied by the Tribunal which is not required to be interfered with.

In view of the above, the compensation is recomputed as under:-

Accordingly, the total amount of Rs. 2,68,000/-, as total amount aforesaid, is additionally computed/allowable/enhanced in the present appeal.

Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order/award dt.18/09/2004 is modified to the extent that the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 2,68,000/- with interest @ 9% will be paid by the non-petitioners. The interest will however be allowed from the date of the filing of the award before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to deposit 1,00,000/- each of the enhanced amount with interest so computed rounded off to the nearest thousands in the name of the appellants father and mother and Rs. 50,000/- in the name of sister in the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) in the nearest post office for a period of five years. The interest accruing on month to month basis will be deposited in the saving account with the same post office with permission to withdraw the monthly interest/quarterly interest as per the scheme post office. The balance of the remaining amount with interest would be disbursed to the father by the Tribunal by bank draft/bankers cheque. It is made clear that the appellants will be allowed interest only as aforesaid of the enhanced amount so deposited in MIS and will not be allowed to take a loan on the same from the post office or raise loan on the said MIS. The above exercise to be done within two months. No costs.