Shiv Kumari (Smt.) vs Ashok Fatnani and Others

This is Claimants appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Raipur (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 07.12.2000 passed in Claim Case No. 29/ 1999.

As against the compensation of Rs. 38,86,000/- claimed by the appellants/Claimants unfortunate parents of deceased Vishwa Deepak Soni by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 23.07.1998. The Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 11% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence - led before it held that the claimants'' son Vishwa Deepak Soni died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 23.07.1998: the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No.MP-23-D-3275: as the offending vehicle Bus on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. By deducting l/3rd of Rs. 15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants'' dependency was assessed at Rs. 10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 10,000/- with the multiplier of 12 the compensation was worked out to Rs. 1.20.000/- By awarding further sum of Rs. 12,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1.32.000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Vishwa Deepak Soni The motor M.A. No. 97 of 2001, Decided on 6.7.2010 accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs. 1,32,000/- @ 11% per annum form the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

Shri HS Patel and Shri Aditya Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs. 15000/- per annum only; in deducting l/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 12; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 1,32,000/- only.

Shri Sourabh sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that, the compensation of Rs. 1,32,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

True the claimants pleaded that their son Vishwa Deepak Soni a student of class XII, used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month from tuition and another Rs.2,000/- from karate coaching, but the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. In fact except a baid statement of the father of the deceased in that behalf there is not even an iota of evidence of establish the income of the deceased to that extent. We, therefore do not find any fault in the approach of the tribunal in discarding the claimants evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income on its own estimate at Rs. 15,000/- per annum.

The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only l/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses though the education in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased, in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others Vs. Mohd. Jameel and Another, .

The multiplier of 12 selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Shri Laxman Iyer and Another, . Wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased. The multiplier should never exceed 10.

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected.

The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.