Smt. Gaytri Bai & Others vs Ramesh Kumar Kashyap & Others

Gautam Chourdiya, J

This appeal is by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award 27th June, 2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG) in Claim Case No. 564/2015 awarding total compensation of Rs.6,78,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till realization, fastening liability on the non-applicant No.3 jointly and severally along with non-applicants No. 1 & 2/driver & owner.

As per claim petition, on 19.9.2015 deceased Chaitram, 25 years, earning Rs.6000/- per month as a labour under a railway contractor, died in the motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle truck bearing No. CG 11 AB 2866, by non-applicant No.1, which was owned by non-applicant No.2 and insured with non-applicant No.3.

On claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties passed an award as mentioned above.

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits as under:

(i) that income of the deceased has wrongly been considered by the Tribunal as Rs.4,500/- whereas it should have been Rs.6,000/-.

(ii) that no amount towards future prospect has been granted to the claimants.

(iii) that the amount awarded under the conventional heads also being on the lower side deserves to be enhanced suitably. No amount towards loss of filial and parental consortium has been granted.

In support of above contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Nanuram @ Chuhru Ram and others in Civil Appeal No.9581/2018 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3192/2018.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents support the impugned award and submit that the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matters has rightly awarded compensation which needs no interference by this Court.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

As regards income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as a labour but no documentary or oral evidence in support thereof has been adduced. Therefore, in these circumstances, in absence of any proof regarding income, the income of the deceased is considered as Rs.5,500/- per month as per minimum wages at the relevant time of the skilled labour. Further, considering the age of the deceased, the dependency, the nature of his job and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi, and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the claimants are held entitled for compensation in the following manner:

Sl. No.

Heads

Calculation (in rupees)

01.

Income of the deceased @ Rs.5,500/- per month.

66,000/- per annum

02.

40% of (i) above to be added towards future prospects.

66,000 + 26,400 = 92,400/-

03.

1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased

92,400 - 30,800 = 61,600/-

04.

Multiplier of 18 to be applied

11,08,800/-

05.

Towards loss of estate, loss of spousal consortium and funeral expenses

70,000/-

06.

. Towards loss of parental consortium to claimant No.2

15,000/-

07.

Towards loss of filial consortium to claimants No.3 & 4 @ Rs.15,000/- each.

30,000/-

Total:

12,23,800/

Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 6,78,000/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the claimants are held entitled for additional compensation of Rs. 5,45,800/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till realization. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent.