AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 719 wordsG.C. Garg, J.—Ram Parshad and respondent Zile Singh were going on a scooter. The Scooter was being driven by the latter. A truck being driven rashly and negligently by respondent Ram Kishan hit the scooter. Ram Parshad and Zile Singh sustained multiple injuries in that accident which took place on 31.3.1989. Ram Parshad died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Harvati Devi widow, four sons and mother of the deceased Ram Parshad filed a petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the death of Ram Parshad.
Learned Tribunal on a consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that the deceased Ram Parshad on the date of the accident was working as Lans Dafadar and was drawing a salary of Rs. 1,366/- per month. Learned Tribunal after deducting 1/3rd of his income on account of his personal expenses, assessed the dependency of the claimants on him at Rs.900/- per month. Learned Tribunal applied a multiple of 18 and thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,94,400/- as compensation for the death of Ram Parshad.
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants filed this appeal seeking enhancement in compensation.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and learned Tribunal was not justified in applying a cut of 1/3rd to the income of the deceased on account of his personal expenses. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Co., on the other hand, submitted that learned Tribunal erred in applying a multiplier of 18 which in the facts and circumstances of this case could at the most be taken between 14 to 16 only.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the award, I find that the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased at the time of accident was earning a sum of Rs. 1,366/- per month by way of his salary from his employment in the Army. He left behind his widow and four minor sons, besides his mother who was also dependent on him. In these circumstances, it cannot be expected that he might have bean spending one-third of his income on himself and the remaining amount was being contributed to the claimants. Even if a major is taken to be one unit and one unit is taken for two children, the deceased left behind four units of dependents. Thus in my opinion the learned Tribunal was not justified in applying a cut of 1/3rd on account of his personal expenses. I thus applying a cut of 1/4th to the income of the deceased, assess the dependency of the claimants on him at Rs. 1,025/- per month. As noticed already, learned Tribunal has applied a multiplier of 18. Learned Tribunal on appreciation of entire evidence led before him came to the conclusion that the deceased at the time of accident was aged 35 years and his mother was aged 80 years. Thus having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the multiplier of 18 applied by the learned Tribunal is little on the higher side and the multiplier of 16 is quite just and fair. The amount of compensation by taking the dependency of Rs. 1,025/- per month and applying a multiplier of 16 would thus come to Rs. 1,96,800/-.
A perusal of the award goes to show that no amount has been awarded by the learned Tribunal on account of funeral expenses and loss of love, affection and company of the deceased by the claimants. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I thus award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of consortium and Rs. 5,000/- on account of funeral expenses etc. The appellants shall also have the costs of this appeal which are assessed at Rs. 1,000/-.
The appellants shall thus be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 2,06,800/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum minus the amount, if any, already received by them from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. The award of the learned Tribunal in all other respects is maintained and is modified to the extent indicated above. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
