Smt. Madhuri Rawat and Others vs Yogamber Singh Rawat and Another

Rajesh Tandon, J.—The present appeal has been directed against the judgment and award dated 8.7.1997, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal.

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that appellants filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Pauri Garhwal, for grant of compensation on account of death of Sri Tirath Singh in a motor vehicle accident on 25.11.1995 at 5.00 p.m. at village Teka near Kanshkhet, district Pauri Garhwal involving Bus No. UTS 1021. The claimants alleged that on the date of accident the deceased was going with a marriage party. When the ill-fated bus reached near village Teka, it had stopped to take some more baraties. The deceased Tirath Singh Rawat had climbed on the roof of the bus to load luggage of those baraties. Soon he was coming down from the roof of the bus, the driver without any signal started the bus due to which the deceased fell down and he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was rushed to the District Hospital, Pauri Garhwal where he remained admitted till 27.11.1995. Thereafter he was taken to Delhi and was treated in Safadarjang Hospital from 28.11.1995 to 12.1.1996. Thereafter he was discharged but he developed complication and was again admitted in Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi, where he succumbed to the injuries on 9.4.1996. The deceased was aged 32 years at the time of accident. He was doing business and was earning Rs. 3,500 per month.

The opposite party No. 1, owner of the bus did not contest the claim petition. However, the insurance company contested the claim petition and filed its written statement.

The Claims Tribunal framed as many as four issues. Issue No. 1 was with regard to the accident, which was decided in affirmative and it was held that Tirath Singh died on account of injuries, which he had received in the accident on 25.11.1995. Issue No. 2 was framed regarding insurance of the vehicle in question and on the basis of evidence on record it was held that the vehicle was validly insured with the National Insurance Company at the time of accident. Issue No. 4 was framed regarding violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and it was held that there was no violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The findings on issues No. 1, 2 and 4 Were not disputed before us.

Issue No. 3 was framed with regard to the amount of compensation. and the Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence on record held that the deceased was 32 years old at the time of accident and he was earning Rs. 3,500 per month and out of that amount he was spending Rs. 3,000 per month on his family. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for pecuniary loss. The Claims Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000 for the expenses incurred in the treatment of the deceased and Rs. 5,000 for the last rites of the deceased. Thus, the claimants were awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,30,000 as compensation. Feeling aggrieved the present appeal has been preferred by the claimants.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

The main contention of the appellants is that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. The compensation ought to have been calculated on the basis of multiplier method, There is uncontroverted evidence in respect of the expenditure incurred in the treatment of the deceased and the claimants are entitled to get the same but the Claims Tribunal was not justified to award only a sum of Rs. 25,000 on that count.

So far as the income of the deceased is concerned there Is oral testimony of P.W. 1 Smt. Madhuri Rawat. She stated as under :

esjs ifr nq?kZVuk ds iwoZ nqdku djrs Fks os nq?kZVuk ls 7&8 eghus igys ls tkSuiqj esa ijpwu dh nqdku djrs FksA os 4&5 gtkj :i;s egkokj dekrs FksA

P.W. 2 Devendra Singh also stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 5,000 per month and he had his shop in the house of his father-in-law. The Claims Tribunal has held the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,500 as he was running a purchoon shop. The learned Tribunal erred in holding that out of this amount he used to spend Rs. 3,000 per month on his family. The learned Tribunal also erred in awarding the lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000 without applying the multiplier method.

In the case of U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Trilok Chandra 1993 ACJ 831 it has been held that there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that payment being made is Just compensation. It has further been held that the multiplier method must be accepted for determining and ensuring payment of Just compensation as it is the method which brings the uniformity and certainty in awarding the compensation.

The Apex Court has observed as under :

"The situation has now undergone a change with the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended by the Amendment Act 54 of 1994. The most important change introduced by the amendment insofar as it relates to determination of compensation is the insertion of Sections 163A and 163B in Chapter XI entitled ''Insurance of Motor Vehicles Against Third Party Risks'' Section 163A begins with a non-obstante clause and provides for payment of compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal representatives of the deceased or injured as the case may be. Now if we turn to the Second Schedule, we find a table fixing the mode of calculation of compensation for third party fatal accident injury claims arising out of the accidents. The first column gives the age group of the victims of accident, the second column indicate the multiplier and the subsequent horizontal figures indicate the quantum of compensation in thousand payable to the heirs of the deceased victim. Accordingly to this table the multiplier varies from 5 to 18 depending on the age group to which the victim belonged. Thus, under this Schedule the maximum multiplier can be up to 18 and not 16 as was held in Susamma Thomas case, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC)."

In the case of Manju. Devi and Anr. v. Musafir Pastuan and Anr. 2005 ACJ 99 the Apex Court has held as under :

In the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, it has been held by this Court that there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that payment being made is just compensation. It has been held that the multiplier method must be accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation as it is the method which brings uniformity and certainty to awards made all over the country. In view of this authority, it will have to be held that the award of compensation had to be made by the multiplier method."

In view of the above, after deducting one third amount, i.e., Rs. 1,200 from the monthly income of Rs. 3,500 of the deceased for the own expenses of the deceased, if he would have been alive, the dependency of the claimants on the income of deceased comes to Rs. 2,300 per month or Rs. 27,600 per annum. The age of the deceased at the time of accident was 32 years. Thus, considering the age of the deceased a multiplier of 17 would be applicable and by multiplying the amount of annual dependency of Rs. 27,600 the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,69,200.

So far as the amount incurred in the treatment of the deceased is concerned, the claimants filed cash memos and bills for only Rs. 3638.60 as per list 27C before the Claims Tribunal. It has been stated on behalf of the claimants that although the claimants incurred a sum of about Rs. 1,25,000 in the treatment of the deceased but other vouchers and cash memos were lost. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000 in this count. Deceased Tirath Singh survived for about four and a half month after the accident and during that period he got treatment at District Hospital, Pauri and Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi. Thus, certainly a considerable amount might have been incurred in his treatment, conveyance, diet and maintenance of attendants. We are of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 40,000 in this count would be sufficient to compensate the loss to the claimants.

Apart from the amount of Rs. 5,000 awarded by the Claims Tribunal for the last rites of the deceased a sum of Rs. 5,000 is awarded to Smt. Madhuri widow of the deceased for loss of consortium.

In State of Haryana u. Jasbir Kaur 2003 (11) AIC 597 (SC) reliance has been placed on the judgment of Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and Others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. and Another, , regarding ''just compensation''. The observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court are as under :

"Though by use of the expression "which appears to It to be just" a wide discretion is vested on the Tribunal the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just."

Thus, the claimants are awarded a total sum of Rs. 5,19,200 as compensation along with pendcnte life and future interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The amount of compensation shall be paid preferably by the insurance company. Smt. Madhurl, claimant No. 1 shall get one third of the total amount while rest of the amount shall be divided equally in the remaining claimants. The amount payable to the minors shall be deposited in fixed deposit in some nationalised bank till the time they attain the age of majority.

Accordingly the appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.