Shiv Kumar Banerjee and Others vs Mohd. Ajad and Others

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

This is claimants appeal filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, vide award dated 16.01.2003 passed in Claim Case No. 224/2002.

The claimants, unfortunate parents and younger sisters of deceased Asharam claimed compensation of Rs. 10,35,000/- by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Act for his death in the motor accident on 12.08.2001 when the jeep bearing registration MP-23L/8728 in which he was travelling was dashed by the offending vehicle Trax bearing registration No. MP-24-G-0818, resulting in instantaneous death of Asharam on the spot. The claimants further pleaded that deceased - Asharam, who was aged about 16 years used to earn Rs. 100 -125/- per day as Carpenter.

The owner, driver and the insurer contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle Trax pleaded that the claim petition suffered from the defect of non-impleadment of the driver, owner and insurer of the jeep. The insurer of the Trax, on the other hand, took the plea that the driver of the Trax was not holding a valid driving license and the Trax was being plied in breach of the policy conditions.

The claimants examined AW-Shiv Kumar in support of their claim, whereas the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle Trax did not examine any witness in rebuttal.

The Tribunal on the evidence led by the parties held that Asharam died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12.08.2001; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Trax; as the Trax was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. on the date of accident, the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

The Tribunal did not find the evidence led about the income of the deceased reliable and therefore, assessed his income at Rs. 1,000/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of the income of Rs. 1,000/- as personal expenses of deceased Asharam, the claimants dependency was assessed at Rs. 667/- per month and Rs. 8,124/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 8,124/- with the multiplier of 10, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 81,240/-. By awarding a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- under other permissible heads, a total sum of Rs. 91,240/- was awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the claimants for the death of Asharam in the motor accident. The Tribunal further awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 91,240/-.

Shri R.S. Patel, leanred counsel for the Appellant placing reliance on the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Manju Devi and Anr. v. Musafir Paswan and Anr. (2005 ACJ 99) submitted that the claimants at least deserve to be awarded a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Asharam in the motor accident.

Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 3, on the other hand, supported the award and submitted that the compensation of Rs. 91,240/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the case as the Appellants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them.

The findings recorded by the Tribunal that deceased Asharam died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12.08.2001; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Trax; and the insurer of the offending vehicle Trax was liable to pay compensation to the claimants, have now attained finality as the Respondents have not filed any appeal against the award. That apart, there is overwhelming evidence available on record to establish the above facts beyond any shadow of doubt. We, therefore, affirm the findings recorded by the Tribunal in that behalf.

Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 91,240/awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

The Apex Court in the case of Manju Devi and Anr. (supra) while assessing the compensation payable to the claimants in the said case observed in paras 1 to 4 as under:

In this case a 13 years old boy was killed in an accident on 02.07.1998. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.) held that the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck. The Tribunal, whilst awarding compensation, fixed a sum of Rs. 90,000/- on the basis that it considered that amount to be just, proper and reasonable. The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine.

In the case of U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), it has been held by this Court that there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that payment being made is just compensation. It has been held that the multiplier method must be accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation as it is the method which brings uniformity and certainty to awards made all over the country. In view of this authority, it will have to be held that the award of compensation had to be made by the multiplier method.

As set out in Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a boy of 13 years of age, a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied. As per the second Schedule, he being a non earning person a sum of Rs. 15,000/- must be taken as the income. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 2,25,000/-

We accordingly modify the award to be in a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/-with interest as awarded. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

Reverting to the case in hand, the Tribunal found that deceased -Asharam, son of Appellants No. 1 & 2 and brother of Appellants No. 3 to 6 died in the motor accident on 12.03.2001. Though the claimants pleaded that deceased - Asharam used to earn Rs. 100 -125/- per day as Carpenter, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. Be that as it may, the fact remains that deceased - Asharam, who was aged about 16 years at the time of accident lost his life in the motor accident which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Trax. Considering the fact that deceased Asharam was aged about 16 years, we are of the opinion that the Appellants are also entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- as was awarded by the Apex Court in the above quoted judgment in the case of Manju Devi and Anr. (Supra).

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants u/s 173 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 91,240/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,25,000/-. The Appellants are further entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,33,760/- @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

Respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,33,760/- and the amount of interest on the said compensation within a period of 2 months from today before the concerning Claims Tribunal.

No order as to costs.