Smt. Leela Devi and Others vs Ram Bhag and Others

G.C. Garg, J.—This order will dispose of F.A.Os 1284 and 1127 of 1995 as these are directed against the award dated 3.2.1995 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal.

Pardeep Kumar and Surinder Singla were coming on a motor Cycle from Karnal side and when they reached near Village Kambohpura, a truck driven by Ram Bhaj respondent herein came from behind at a very high speed and knocked down them. Both of them died due to the injuries sustained by them in the accident which took place on 26.3.1992.

Leela Devi mother, Rameshwar Dass father, two sisters and one brother of deceased Pardeep Kumar filed a claim petition being MACT Case 89 of 1992 claiming compensation for his death whereas Claim petition being MACT Case 92 of 1992 was filed by the widow, Rama Rani Singla and her three minor children of Surinder Kumar Singla claiming compensation for his death.

Learned Tribunal on a consideration of the matter disposed of the two claim petitions and one more, by a single award dated 3.2.1995. As regard the claim petition of Leela Devi and others, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,20,500/- as compensation for the death of Pardeep Kumar. The Tribunal in the other claim petition awarded a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- as compensation for the death of Surinder Kumar Singla.

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants in MACT Case No. 89 of 1992 filed F.A.O. 1284 of 1995 and the claimants in MACT Case 92 of 1992 filed F.A.O. 1127 of 1995 seeking enhancement of compensation.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and it deserves to be enhanced.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award of the learned Tribunal.

As regards claim for the death of Pardeep Kumar, learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was not proved on the record that Pardeep Kumar was earning any amount from some employment. The Tribunal, however assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1650/- by assuming that he being an able-bodied person and being of the age of 22 years could be expected to have been earning this much amount. Learned Tribunal while considering the question of dependency of the claimants of the deceased came to the conclusion that deceased was 22 years of age and was unmarried. He would have married after three/four years if he had not died in the accident. The learned Tribunal applied a cut of l/3rd on the income of the deceased on account of his personal expenses and thus assessed the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 1100/- per month for a period of five years. Learned Tribunal for the next eleven years assessed the dependency at Rs. 375/- per month only, ap- plying a cut of 2/3rd on the amount of Rs. 1100/- on account of his contribution to his own family, which as already noticed, came after applying a cut of l/3rd to his total income of Rs. 1650/-. Thus applying a multiplier of 16, learned Tribunal calculated the compensation at Rs. 66,000/- i.e. Rs. 1100x12x5 keeping in view the dependency at Rs. 1100/- per month and further calculated the compensation at Rs. 49,500/- i.e. Rs. 375 x 12 x 11 keeping in view the dependency at Rs. 375/- per month for a period of eleven years. Learned Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- on account of funeral expenses. Thus in all a sum of Rs. 1,20,500/- was awarded. On a consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that learned Tribunal was not justified in applying a cut of l/3rd to the amount of Rs. 1100/- and thus assessing the dependency only at Rs. 375/- per month as this cut ought to have been made to the amount of Rs. 1650/- i.e. the total income of the deceased, assessed by the learned Tribunal. Once a cut of l/3rd is applied to the amount of total income of the deceased i.e. Rs. 1650/- for purpose of determining the dependency of the claimants for the remaining eleven years having regard to the fact that the deceased might have married after five years and thus might have required at least 2/3rd of his income to contribute to his family, the dependency of the claimants will come to Rs. 550/- per month. The amount of compensation would thus come to Rs. 72,600/- i.e. Rs. 550/- x 12 x 11 for the latter eleven years as against the amount of Rs. 49,500/- awarded by the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- on account of funeral expenses etc. Thus the total amount of compensation payable to the claimants in FAO No. 1284 of 1995 will come to Rs. 1,43,600/- as against the amount of Rs. 1,20,500/-. It is so ordered.

As regards the appeal filed by Rama Rani, learned Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence produced before it came to the conclusion that the deceased Surinder Kumar Singla might have been earning a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per annum. Learned Tribunal thus applying a cut of l/3rd to the income of the deceased on account of his personal expenses, determined the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 20,000/- per annum. Learned Tribunal applying a multiplier of 16, awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,20,000/-. On a consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in applying a cut of l/3rd to the income of Surinder Kumar Single on account of his personal expenses. The deceased left behind one widow and three minor children. Thus having regard to the number of persons of his family, it cannot be expected that he might be spending l/3rd of his come on himself and remaining amount he might have been contributing to his family. In the facts and circumstances of this case, only l/4th should have been a just and fair cut on account of personal expenses. Once this is done, now the amount of dependency of the claimants would come to Rs. 22,500/- per annum. Thus applying a multiplier of 16 as has been done by the Tribunal, the amount of compensation payable to the claimants would come to Rs. 3,60,000/- as against Rs. 3,20,000/- awarded by learned Tribunal.

In the aforesaid two cases, learned Tribunal has not awarded interest on the amount of compensation. It my opinion, learned Tribunal was not justified in not granting the interest. In the circumstances, the award of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent as indicated above and further that the appellants in the two appeals shall be entitled to amount of compensation as enhanced hereinabove, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the respective claim petitions till payment, minus the amount if any, already received. The award of the learned Tribunal in all other respects is maintained. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly, No costs.