Sito Bai and Others vs Daljit Singh and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal brought by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to them in a sum of Rs. 4,13,200/- by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Sirsa (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 24.03.2011. The claimants Sito Devi and others filed a petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the death of Makhan Ram having taken place in a road side accident on 11.11.2008. Makhan Ram is claimed to have died at the age of 45 years. He was doing a private job of driver and besides that he was managing the family affairs. These averments have been denied by the respondents.

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the deceased was 45 years of age and was working as a driver. According to him, five are dependents, who are widow and four children. He has further submitted that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 7000/- per month but learned Tribunal has wrongly taken his income at Rs. 3600/- per month. He has further submitted that since five were the claimants, the dependency should have been assessed at 3/4th of the income of the deceased by deducting 1/4th therefrom in the name of expenses of the deceased on himself.

Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has submitted, on the other hand, that no driving licence was produced on the file to prove that he was a driver. According to her, the driving licence would have proved as to what kind of vehicle he was authorized to drive. According to her, out of the five claimants, there are major sons and they are not dependents of the deceased and therefore, deduction at the rate of 1/3rd from the salary of the deceased was proper.

Until and unless it is proved that a son who has though attained the age of majority has become independent, he has to be taken as dependent of his father. In this case, the claimants named Sukhdev Singh and Ramesh Kumar, are shown to be aged 24 and 20 years respectively. However, it has not come even from the side of respondent no. 4 that they were independent. Even if the son aged 24 years is taken as independent, the other one is 20 years old and after taking out the name of Sukhdev Singh, the claimants still remain at 4 and the dependency has to be assessed by applying deduction of 1/4th.

However, a question of greater importance is there as to what is the income of the deceased. Learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 3600/- per month and applying deduction of 1/3rd assessed Rs. 2400/- as monthly dependency of the claimants and Rs. 28,800/- as annual dependency of the claimants. Multiplying the annual dependency with 14, learned Tribunal came to a figure of Rs. 4,03,200/- and adding to it, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in the name of loss of consortium and expenses on last rites, a sum of Rs. 4,13,200/- has been assessed as compensation.

Learned Tribunal should not have lost sight of the fact that the deceased was 45 years old. Even if the income of an unskilled labourer is taken at Rs. 3600/- per month, the income of a person, who attained the age of 45 years would have to be more than that. In my opinion, the income of a 21 years old person and 45 years old person should not be taken as the same. Thus, I assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 4500/- per month Dependents being five, I apply a cut of 1/4th to the same and multiplying the remainder with 12, I find the annual dependency of the claimants at Rs. 40,500/-. Multiplying this amount with 14, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal, I find a sum of Rs. 5,67,000/- in the name of the loss suffered by the claimants in the death of Makhan Ram. Adding to it, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under the conventional heads, I assess a sum of Rs. 5,77,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants-appellants. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 4,13,200/- to Rs. 5,77,000/- which shall be payable to the claimants with simple interest @ 9% per annum as allowed by the Tribunal as also in the proportion as laid down by the Tribunal.