Smt. Manjit Kaur and Others vs Aslam Khan and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal brought by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded to them by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide award dated 19.07.2011 in a sum of Rs. 3,31,400/- for the death of Harpreet Singh in a road side accident that took place on 11.10.2007. The claim petition had been brought by the mother and brother of the deceased u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On 11.10.2007 Harpreet Singh, since deceased was travelling in his Indigo car bearing registration no. PB-70A-0059 on National Highway No. 73. He was moving his car on his correct side of the road and at a moderate speed. When he was near village Batuar, a truck bearing registration No. HR-37A-9649 driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner came from the side of Barwala and had hit the Indigo car. Harpreet Singh suffered multiple injuries, which proved fatal.

The aforesaid averments of the claimants have been denied by the respondents. They have denied the accident to have occurred in the manner alleged by the claimants. They have also denied the claimants to be entitled to Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation.

Learned Tribunal took up the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3200. He was taken from Ex. P-5, his driving licence, to be aged 30 years on the date of the accident. Taking the dependency of the claimants at 50% of the income of the deceased, the same was taken at Rs. 1600/- per month and multiplying the same with 12, the annual dependency came to Rs. 19,200/-. Adopting the multiplier of 17, learned Tribunal came to a sum of Rs. 3,26,400/- as the lost by the claimants in the death of Harpreet Singh. Adding to it, a sum of Rs. 5000/- as expenses on last rites, a sum of Rs. 3,31,400/- has been awarded as compensation.

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the deceased was an agriculturist and was keeping five buffaloes. According to him, he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by cultivating the land and by running a milk dairy. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 3200/- per month, which is at a lower side. According to him, learned Tribunal has not considered addition to the income of the deceased in the name of future prospects. According to him, as he was 30 years old, 50% of the income has to be added in the name of future prospects to assess the dependency of the claimants. He has further submitted that the multiplier of 17 is proper and the calculation should be made by taking the income of the deceased at a higher amount.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted, on the other hand, that the multiplier adopted by learned Tribunal is on a very higher side. According to him, the multiplier in case of a bachelor will be governed by the age of the claimants and not the age of the deceased. He has drawn attention of this court to a decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanti Pathak and Others, where death was of a bachelor and the dependents were the parents. The multiplier of 17 was adopted by the Tribunal, which was not interfered by the High Court and the Apex Court has reduced the multiplier to 5 and reduced the award from Rs. 4,10,000/- to Rs. 2,10,000/-. He has further submitted that the multiplier, thus, adopted by the Tribunal is at a wrong figure. He has also cited another decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shyam Singh and Others, where the deceased was 19 years of age and the claimants were his parents. It was held that the multiplier would be of 8 considering the average age of the parents of the deceased.

To counter this submission, learned counsel for the appellants has cited a decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, where the victim was a bachelor, aged 26 years and the multiplier of 17 was selected on the basis of age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependents.

It is a case where the deceased is claimed to be an agriculturist and running a dairy. These are the aspects where the statement of the claimant alone is there. However, one fact that is apparent is that the deceased was driving an Indigo car. The car is claimed to be belonging to him. There is nothing on the record on the side of the respondents of denial of this allegation. If he was having a car, then his income could not be taken at Rs. 3200/- per month. This fact itself shows that he was earning something more than a labourer.

Though Rs. 5000/- per month would also not be an income having which a person could maintain a car, yet there is no limitation to the imagination in this matter and, therefore, I take the income of the deceased at Rs. 5000/- per month.

The deceased was self employed and in his case also, some amount has to be added to the income in the name of future prospects. The deceased has been 30 years of age and in his case 50% of the income is due to be added to the income to find out the actual income of the deceased. The actual income of the deceased, thus, comes to Rs. 7500/- per month. The dependency of the claimants, who is mother and brother is taken at 1/2 of this amount and multiplying the remainder with 12, the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 45,000/-.

Coming to the aspect of multiplier, there is a solitary decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Amrit Bhanu Shali''s case supra to show that consensus is towards adopting the multiplier with reference to the age of the claimants in case of death of a bachelor. So following the ratio of Shanti Pathak''s case supra, I adopt the multiplier of 11 in this case. Multiplying the annual dependency of the claimants with 11, I find a sum of Rs. 4,95,000/- as the amount lost by the claimants in the death of Harpreet Singh. Adding to it, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as allowed by the Tribunal under the conventional heads, I assess a sum of Rs. 5,05,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants-appellants. Despite the fact that the multiplier has been reduced, the compensation has increased. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 3,31,400/- to Rs. 5,05,000/-. The amount of compensation shall be payable to the claimants by the respondents with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization thereof. 60% of the aforesaid amount shall go to the share of Manjeet Kaur and 40% thereof shall go to Kuldeep Singh.