Sita And Ors vs Devi Lal And Ors

Appellant-claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act') seeking enhancement of compensation quantified and awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara (for short, 'learned Tribunal') by its judgment and award dated 01.09.2018. Learned Tribunal, while adjudicating the claim of appellant-claimants under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Act, has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.16,38,325/- under different heads.

The facts, in brief, giving rise to this appeal are that on the fateful day of 12th of October, 2011 while deceased Arjun was standing on the side of the road in front of N.M. Marble, Industrial Area, Banswara he was hit by Truck No.RJ-03/GA 0272. Due to crushing injuries suffered by the deceased, he died during treatment at Hospital. The incident was reported to the police station concerned and FIR was lodged. It is, inter-alia, averred in the claim petition that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid truck by its driver. Besides impleading owner and driver of the vehicle, insurer was also impleaded as non-applicant. In order to claim compensation to the tune of Rs.83,20,000/- under different heads, it is inter-alia pleaded by the appellants that at the time of death, deceased was 55 years of age and earning Rs.40,000/- per month as RTO Tax Consultant and Advisor. In support thereof, documents were also produced including income tax returns for the assessment year 2012-13 showing annual taxable income of deceased to the tune of Rs.1,39,161/-. Learned Tribunal, while considering the material available on record, found that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle. While adverting to Issue No.3, which was settled on the basis of objections raised by the Insurer, the same was decided against the Insurer in want of evidence. The crucial issue relating to quantum of compensation is examined threadbare by learned Tribunal and relying on the income tax returns and other documents, learned Tribunal assessed the income of deceased to the tune of Rs.16,000/- per mensem. That apart, by relying on the decision of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi [2017 (13) Scale 12], in the backdrop of age of the deceased, learned Tribunal has also added 10% income for future prospects and, accordingly, worked out total amount of compensation for loss of dependency to the tune of Rs.15,68,325/-. In arriving at this figure, learned Tribunal has also made 1/4th deduction for personal expenses of the deceased keeping in view number of dependents and applied the multiplier of 11 by relying on the decision in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121]. Besides that, learned Tribunal has also awarded compensation under certain other heads for cumulatively awarding aforementioned compensation.

Upon perusal of the impugned award in the light of evidence and other materials available on record, in my opinion, finding recorded by learned Tribunal on quantum of compensation (Issue No.2) is just and proper and the amount of compensation awarded is also satisfying the criteria of just and fair compensation within the four corners of Section 168 of the Act.

In view of foregoing discussion, no case for interference is made out. Consequently, appeal fails and the same is hereby rejected.